Hotter temperatures have been linked to a rise in energy poverty, with more people struggling to meet their energy bills from their household income. Flickr / CC by 2.0
By Emma Charlton
The effects of climate change may more far-reaching than you think.
Hotter temperatures have been linked to a rise in energy poverty, with more people struggling to meet their energy bills from their household income, according to a new study published on ScienceDirect by researchers from Italy's Ca' Foscari University.
<p><br/></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/air-conditioners-inequality-energy-poverty-climate-change/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>
<div id="8d41e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a5ee84b11a5a425f469fc093daeab875"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1270064316817997825" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New #research shows households spend a lot more on electricity when they get air conditioning. Along with… https://t.co/ShIZ7Bi7P3</div> — American Scientist (@American Scientist)<a href="https://twitter.com/AmSciMag/statuses/1270064316817997825">1591641904.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The analysis looks at eight countries – Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland – and investigates how households respond to excess heat. They have found an uptick on the purchasing and use of air conditioners, which has led to a greater consumption of electricity, and a greater proportion of income being spent on energy.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzNzQ2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDk1MDMyNX0.kFugb6OJcL71VsABpixfGK-e5FZNdTfMBYG56Jxnw5g/img.jpg?width=980" id="aa380" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3a4bf99c4bd409c58fe037ba8d887d20" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Value of air conditioning imports in selected OECD countries. ScienceDirect
<p>Households spend between 35% and 42% more on electricity when they adopt air conditioning, the study says.</p><p>As temperatures increase around the world, cooling is emerging as a new, basic need – even in countries that traditionally have not previously required such appliances.</p><p>That puts an additional burden on families who might not be able to afford the most efficient appliances and could result in spending being diverted away from food or education towards cooling, the researchers write.</p><p>"Climate change and the growing demand for air conditioning are likely to exacerbate energy poverty," the study says. "The number of energy poor who spend a high share of income on electricity increases, and households in the lowest income" groups are the most negatively affected.</p><p>Energy poverty is an issue that goes beyond air conditioning, with 800 million people lacking access to electricity and many more struggling with an erratic and limited service.</p>
The ‘Golden Thread’
<p>The <a href="https://www.endenergypoverty.org/reports" target="_blank">Global Commission to End Energy Poverty</a> calls access to energy the "golden thread" that weaves together economic growth, human development, and environmental sustainability. And one of the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/archive/sdg-07-affordable-and-clean-energy" target="_blank">United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals</a> is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all by 2030.</p><p>Sustainability also has a large role to play in the future of energy and failing to embed green policies in COVID-19 stimulus packages and underinvesting in green infrastructure are current risks, according to the <a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_COVID_19_Risks_Outlook_Special_Edition_Pages.pdf" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</p><p>In its vision for a 'Great Reset' – building a better world after the pandemic – the Forum and the IMF jointly backed the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-economy-imf-georgieva-great-reset-climate/" target="_blank">transition to a green economy</a> and called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Activists of Greenpeace and Fridays For Future demonstrate on a canal in front of the cooling tower of the coal-fired power plant Datteln 4 of power supplier Uniper in Datteln, western Germany, on May 20. INA FASSBENDER / AFP / Getty Images
The Bundestag and Bundesrat — Germany's lower and upper houses of parliament — passed legislation on Friday that would phase out coal use in the country in less than two decades as part of a road map to reduce carbon emissions.
<p>"The fossil age in Germany comes to an irrevocable end with this decision," said Economy Minister Peter Altmaier. Environment Minister Svenja Schulze called it a "great political success for all those who care about the climate-friendly future of our children and grandchildren."</p><p>The legislative package has two main features. The first establishes a legal avenue for the gradual reduction in emissions by 2038 at the latest, while the second targets regional economies that would be impacted by the phaseout.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-approves-coal-phaseout-by-2038/a-54040605" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646343538#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
Preparing for the Future
<p>Coal-producing regions in the German states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg will have access to €40 billion ($45 billion) to help absorb the impact. Those funds are also expected to go towards restructuring regional economies, re-skilling workers and expanding local infrastructure.</p><p>Financial compensation is also be available to coal plant operators who face losses as a result of the early phaseout. However, compensation is contingent on operators announcing plans by 2026 to shutter plants and cease other emissions-intensive activity.</p><p>Michael Vassiliadis, who heads the IG BCE trade union, called the measures a "historic landmark." He said the package has provided a safety net for workers affected by the phase out and would provide them with the necessary support to transition to future sectors.</p>'Historic Error'
<p>However, not everyone agrees that the measures are enough to mitigate climate change.</p><p>Environmentalist activists say the legislation falls short of its ultimate aim, with Greenpeace managing director Martin Kaiser describing it as a "historic error."</p><p>German Green party chief Annalena Baerbock said the legislation was "oblivious to the future" and instead called on the government to complete Germany's coal phase out by 2030 the latest.</p><p>Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germans-most-worried-about-refugees-climate-change/a-51947417" target="_blank">a DeutschlandTrend survey</a> found that 27 percent of Germans believe climate change is the most pressing issue facing the country, just slightly behind refugees and immigration policy.</p><p>Germany is seeking to establish a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. The European Commission has also pushed forward with similar plans for the EU.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Germany Converts Coal Mine Into Giant Battery Storage for Surplus ... ›
- Germany Plans to Quit Coal by 2038 'But There's a Problem ... ›
- Climate Activists Protest Germany's New Datteln 4 Coal Power Plant ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Climate campaigners and Indigenous peoples across Canada have spent the past several years protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline. Mark Klotz / Flickr / cc
By Elana Sulakshana
Rainforest Action Network recently uncovered a document that lists the 11 companies that are currently insuring the controversial Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline in Canada. These global insurance giants are providing more than USD$500 million in coverage for the massive risks of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, and they're also lined up to cover the expansion project.
<p>The existing Trans Mountain pipeline is a major environmental and public health hazard with a <a href="https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/frequently_asked_questions_regarding_the_kinder_morgan_pipeline_proposal" target="_blank">long history of disastrous spills</a>. Earlier this month, 50,000 gallons of crude oil <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trans-mountain-pipeline-oil-spill-british-columbia-2646173087.html" target="_self">spilled</a> from a pump station located above an aquifer that supplies the Sumas First Nation with drinking water.</p>
<p>The Trans Mountain Expansion Project would multiply these risks tremendously. Though it is officially called an "expansion," this is no minor renovation. The Canadian government, which owns Trans Mountain, is attempting to build a parallel pipeline that would ship more than 890,000 barrels per year of highly-polluting tar sands crude oil to the coast of British Columbia.</p><p>For more than a decade, the expansion of Trans Mountain has been delayed in the face of powerful, Indigenous-led resistance on the ground and in the courts. It has not secured the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities that are directly in the pipeline's route. Right now, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Squamish Nation, and Coldwater Indian Band are <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/trans-mountain-tmx-first-nations-supreme-court-1.5525266" target="_blank">actively engaged in legal challenges</a> on the project, and <a href="http://tinyhousewarriors.com/" target="_blank">land defenders</a> are asserting their rights and title along the route. </p><p>Furthermore, pushing forward this project flies in the face of Canada's commitment to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. To keep global warming under 1.5ºC, we must stop expanding tar sands — and all fossil fuels — and instead invest in a just transition to phase out existing operations. </p>
<p>In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the government and corporations are doubling down on their destructive plans to build new fossil fuel projects. Bulldozers that are laying the initial pipe on Trans Mountain have not quieted, even though this construction poses <a href="http://www.tinyhousewarriors.com/2020/04/shut-down-the-man-camps/" target="_blank">major risks</a> to Indigenous and rural communities in its path, as well as workers that are housed together in close quarters. In Alberta, <a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/05/13/news/alberta-didnt-contain-it-covid-19-outbreak-oilsands-camp-has-spread-across-country" target="_blank">viral outbreaks</a> have been linked to<a href="http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/un-special-rapporteur-oil-gas-mining-operations-brings-increased-sexual-violence/" target="_blank"> man camps </a>at tar sands extraction sites, and yet the province's energy minister <a href="https://www.coastmountainnews.com/news/gathering-limits-make-it-a-great-time-to-be-building-a-pipeline-alberta-minister/" target="_blank">proclaimed</a> that now is a great time to construct a pipeline, due to social distancing protocols that limit public protest. </p><p>The risks of these pipelines are so great that under federal law, the current pipeline and its expansion are not able to transport any oil without insurance. So if we can stop the flow of insurance money, we can stop the flow of oil.</p><p>We're ramping up the pressure on the insurance companies that are providing critical financial support.</p>
Who’s insuring the pipeline? (2019-2020)
<p>Here's the list of insurance companies that are providing coverage from August 2019 through August 2020:</p><ol><li>Zurich (Switzerland)</li><li>Lloyd's (UK) </li><li>Liberty Mutual (US)</li><li>Chubb (US)</li><li>AIG (US)</li><li>WR Berkley (US)</li><li>Starr (US)</li><li>Stewart Specialty Risk Underwriting (Canada)</li><li>Energy Insurance Mutual (US) </li><li>Temple Insurance (Germany), a Canadian member of the Munich Re group</li><li>HDI (Germany), which is owned by Talanx / Hannover Re</li></ol><p>These insurance policies are being arranged by the biggest insurance broker in the world: Marsh. Fun fact: Marsh is also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/04/worlds-largest-insurance-broker-under-pressure-over-support-for-adani-and-other-coal-projects" target="_blank">currently under fire</a> for facilitating insurance for the Adani Carmicheal coal mine in Australia.</p><p>Trans Mountain's insurance policy is up at the end of August, so we are urgently calling on these companies to:</p><ul><li>Publicly commit to not renew their insurance policy for Trans Mountain for 2020-21;<br></li><li>Moving forward, rule out insurance for all tar sands extraction and transport projects and companies;<br></li><li>Adopt a policy to ensure that projects and companies they insure have obtained the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of impacted communities.</li></ul><p>We've made some progress. In late June, <a href="https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/environmental/talanx-group-dropping-support-for-trans-mountain-pipeline-226532.aspx" target="_blank">Talanx indicated</a> that it already dropped the pipeline, and Munich Re signaled that it will not renew its policy. These two German insurers recently adopted policies restricting tar sands business. </p><p>A global coalition of environmental NGOs, First Nations, and insurance campaigners is demanding that the rest of Trans Mountain's insurers follow suit and stop being complicit in the violation of Indigenous rights, spread of COVID-19, and the desecration of sacred waterways and the global climate.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/author/elana-sulakshana" target="_blank">Elana Sulakshana</a> leads <a href="https://www.ran.org/" target="_blank">Rainforest Action Network</a>'s campaign pressuring the U.S. insurance industry to stop making the climate crisis worse. She has been active in the climate justice movement for the last eight years, most recently organizing for just and equitable climate policy in Washington State, fighting fracking in the U.K., and campaigning for universities to divest from fossil fuels and reinvest in communities.</em></p><p><em></em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/04/whos-insuring-trans-mountain-pipeline" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trudeau Government Approves Trans Mountain Expansion a Day ... ›
- Trans Mountain Pipeline Spills up to 50,000 Gallons of Oil on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A Chesapeake Energy drilling rig is located on farmland near Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, on March 20, 2012. Melanie Stetson Freeman / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
Climate advocates pointed to news Sunday that fracking giant Chesapeake Energy was filing for bankruptcy as further evidence that the fossil fuel industry's collapse is being hastened by the coronavirus pandemic and called for the government to stop propping up businesses in the field.
<p>"Fracking giant Chesapeake Energy just declared bankruptcy thanks to its massive $9 billion debt," <a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/status/1277644540866965505" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Friends of the Earth. "Meanwhile the Trump administration continues to try and bail out this garbage fire industry with our tax dollars—despite clear risks."</p>
<div id="e5f24" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6e7171f8e2904f47ed8066a7a21bd48a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1277573943340171264" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The poster company for US fracking has fallen. https://t.co/n1MWs3sszT</div> — Andrew Thaler (@Andrew Thaler)<a href="https://twitter.com/DrAndrewThaler/statuses/1277573943340171264">1593432338.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The company, which at its peak in 2008 was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/28/chesapeake-energy-once-power-gas-business-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">valued</a> at $37 billion, had a market capitalization of just $115 million on Friday.</p><p>"The debt bubble made it unable for Chesapeake to maneuver when the pandemic ruined demand for energy," David Dayen <a href="https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-medicare-for-coronavirus/" target="_blank">wrote</a> of the bankruptcy for <em>The American Prospect</em>.</p><p>News reports put most of the blame for the bankruptcy on former CEO Aubrey McClendon, who bought up leases and rights around the country as the fracking industry boomed. </p><p>As <em>Forbes</em> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/06/29/chesapeake-energy-finally-succumbs-with-chapter-11-filing/#52549bb56b58" target="_blank">reported</a>, a number of bad business decisions and moves left Chesapeake in bad condition even before gas prices collapsed due to the slowed demand from the pandemic.</p>
<p>According to <em>Forbes</em>:</p><blockquote>As natural gas prices <a title="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" target="_blank">collapsed in the late 2000s</a>, McClendon next turned to sales of his own company's assets or portions of working interests in big play areas as a means of continuing to finance and pay down that debt. He sold shares of the company's working interests in the Barnett, the Eagle Ford, the Marcellus and the Haynesville to various other players, like <a title="https://bp.com" href="https://bp.com/" target="_blank">BP</a> and <a title="https://cnooc.com" href="https://cnooc.com/" target="_blank">CNOOC</a>, but every sale also meant less and less cash flow coming into the company itself. Many in the business during that time joked about it being a sort of a pyramid scheme in which the debts would ultimately end up outstripping the company's income and ability to pay.<br><br>McClendon also made the decision in 2010-11 to shift Chesapeake's gas-heavy asset mix to one more heavy in liquids. That strategic decision certainly helped during a time of $100 oil prices, but the bust of 2015-16 and the current COVID-19-related price collapse ultimately proved to heavy a burden for current CEO Doug Lawler—who was brought on board in 2013—and his management team to navigate. A company that once had a market cap of over $37 billion at one point in May saw its market cap drop as low as $200 million. A company that once employed over 8,000 individuals today employs around 2,300.</blockquote>
<p>John Thieroff, a senior analyst at Moody's Investors Service, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/31f35631-7b7d-4fa1-8eef-6255bf18cf88?segmentId=b0d7e653-3467-12ab-c0f0-77e4424cdb4c" target="_blank">told</a> the <em>Financial Times</em> Sunday he expected other companies to follow suit.</p><p>"There will no doubt be others to file for bankruptcy in the near term as the sector looks to get out from under the copious amount of debt it took on during the boom," said Thieroff.</p><p>President Donald Trump has weighed bailing out the fossil fuel industry as part of a coronavirus pandemic recovery plan. The plans have been met with stiff resistance from environmental groups like Western Values Project, which <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/05/19/trump-admin-punishes-renewables-while-bailing-out-oil-and-gas" target="_blank">said</a> in May that the move was an example of the White House "using a public health crisis as an excuse to bail out the president's corporate cronies while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/29/poster-company-us-fracking-has-fallen-chesapeake-energy-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Fracking Industry's Propaganda Hypes Shale Gas Production and ... ›
- Another Blow to the Fracking Industry—Chesapeake Energy's ... ›
- Former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon Is Back to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
'Another Blow to the Black Community': Trump Waives Environmental Law That Gives Public a Voice in Infrastructure Projects
05 June
Politics
A pipeline being constructed in Pennsylvania. Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday mandating federal agencies bypass key environmental reviews of energy and infrastructure projects.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Trump said the rule was designed to stimulate the economy in response to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic, but critics say the move will disproportionately impact communities of color amidst ongoing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/protestors-publich-health-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-2646141562.html" target="_self">national protests</a> following the police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many other Black Americans. The order instructs agencies to work around the<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-environmental-policy-act" target="_self"> National Environmental Policy Act</a> (NEPA), which gives communities a chance to weigh in on projects that would impact them, as<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/870098279/trump-waives-environmental-reviews-citing-pandemic-economic-emergency" target="_blank"> NPR explained</a>. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">Fossil fuel</a> projects and highways tend to have a greater effect on Black and Brown communities, as <a href="https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-executive-order-infrastructure-covid-19_n_5ed91e46c5b68d57cbcf9961?ri18n=true" target="_blank">HuffPost pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>"Today President Trump is dealing another blow to the Black community, during a worldwide pandemic and nearly a week into nationwide Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality and structural racism," House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in a statement reported by HuffPost. "Gutting NEPA takes away one of the few tools communities of color have to protect themselves and make their voices heard on federal decisions impacting them."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today Trump is taking action to make it harder for Black and brown communities to have a say on major decisions that will impact quality of life and the environment.<br><br>He did this in the middle of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BlackLivesMatter</a> protests against structural racism. <a href="https://t.co/lXypKm91a0">https://t.co/lXypKm91a0</a></p>— Natural Resources Committee (@NRDems) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDems/status/1268626357254262784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>NEPA was signed by Richard Nixon in 1970, NPR summarized. It requires federal agencies to review the environmental consequences of projects like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipelines</a> and consult the public. It may also invoke the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_self">Endangered Species Act</a> if vulnerable plants or animals would be threatened.</p><p>This isn't the first time the Trump administration has targeted NEPA. It proposed a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-environment-infrastructure-review-2644664081.html" target="_self">major rollback</a> in January that would limit the length of the review process and the number of projects subject to it.</p>
<p>The current executive order gives the Transportation Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Defense Department and the head of the Army Corps of Engineers 30 days to compile a list of expedited projects, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/climate/trump-environment-coronavirus.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. The agencies were ordered to "use all relevant emergency and other authorities" to speed the projects.</p><p>"Unnecessary regulatory delays will deny our citizens opportunities for jobs and economic security, keeping millions of Americans out of work and hindering our economic recovery from the national emergency," Trump wrote in the order.</p>
<p>However, environmental groups accused the administration of using the pandemic as a smokescreen for its broader deregulatory agenda. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-coronavirus-regulating-polluters-2645582013.html" target="_self">suspended</a> the enforcement of clean air and water laws, HuffPost pointed out.</p><p>"When it comes to trying to unravel this nation's environmental protection laws, this administration never sleeps," professor of environmental law at Harvard University Richard Lazarus told The New York Times.</p>
<p>The new order is so broad that environmental groups say it may be vulnerable to legal challenges, according to NPR.</p><p>Lazarus agreed.</p><p>"The president's assertion of authority to waive the application of environmental laws in the way described seems wholly untethered from law," he said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Environmental Racism in Action: The Trump Administration's Plans ... ›
- 'Freeway Revolts' Helped Create the People's Environmental Law ›
- Environmental Negligence vs. Civil Rights: Black and Hispanic ... ›
- 15 EcoWatch Stories on Environmental and Racial Injustice ... ›
- In This Time of Crisis, We Need to Keep Our Eyes Open - EcoWatch ›
- Movement Grows to Declare Racism a Public Health Emergency - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
During a protest action on May 30 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Datteln in front of the site of the Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant, Greenpeace activists projected the lettering: "Climate crisis - Made in Germany" onto the cooling tower. Guido Kirchner / picture alliance / Getty Images
Around 500 climate activists on Saturday gathered outside the new Datteln 4 coal power plant in Germany's Ruhr region, to protest against its opening.
<p>Fridays for Future, Greenpeace, as well as German groups Ende Gelände and the German Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND) were represented at the protests.</p><p>During the night into Saturday, climate activists graffitied the slogan "Climate crisis, made in Germany" on the side of the tower.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-protest-germanys-new-datteln-4-coal-power-plant/a-53632887" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646137253#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
<p>The plant, owned by Dusseldorf-based energy company Uniper, began running on Saturday, after a nearly 10-year delay to its initial start date. It fired up just months after Germany unveiled a plan to phase out coal by 2038.</p>
<p>The protests were reported to be largely peaceful, despite several actions during the day-long event. One action included members of Ende Gelände swimming and using canoes in a canal used for cooling, while holding a floating banner with the slogan: "Shut it down."</p>
<div id="9e242" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="38e575ed16e09279dfea210cafaa44f0"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1263057783290724353" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Klimaprotest in Zeiten von #Corona ist nicht leicht. Aber wir machen es möglich, denn notwendig ist es offensichtli… https://t.co/oKazEWwaGv</div> — Luisa Neubauer (@Luisa Neubauer)<a href="https://twitter.com/Luisamneubauer/statuses/1263057783290724353">1589971416.0</a></blockquote></div>
Climate Activists Speak Out
<p>Speaking at the protest, German Fridays for Futures climate activist Luisa Neubauer said: "It's a post-factual power plant. The facts speak for themselves." She said it was a "provocation," to mark the planned coal phaseout with a new coal power plant.</p><p>"We're going to stop this power plant, we're going to bring it to a standstill, we will win this conflict," Neubauer added.</p><p>Former miners also attended the protest. "We condemn the fact that coal mining in Germany was halted and jobs were lost, only for coal now to be imported from other countries to power Datteln 4," said Sebastian Suszka, a former workers' council member.</p><p>Greta Thunberg, founder of climate activist movement Fridays for Futures tweeted that Saturday was "a shameful day for Europe.</p><div id="e0ee4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c4980f9c8b3d58f5d4075f5174690372"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1266646886896881664" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today is a shameful day for Europe, as we open up a brand new coal power plant. We have signed up to lead the way t… https://t.co/BFX5PcGejv</div> — Greta Thunberg (@Greta Thunberg)<a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/statuses/1266646886896881664">1590827125.0</a></blockquote></div>
Germany's Coal Phaseout
<p>Earlier this year, Germany announced a roadmap to see coal phased out, at the latest by 2038. It laid out plans for eight coal-fired power plants to be taken off the grid in 2020.</p><p>It was an important step for the largest contributor of carbon emissions in the EU — accounting for more than 22 percent of the bloc's CO2 emissions. Over a third of the electricity generated in Germany comes from burning coal.</p><p>Germany's coal commission has recommended that solutions be found for coal plants that are already built but not-yet-in-use to keep them from operating.<br></p><p>The state of North-Rhine Westphalia insisted that the additional carbon dioxide emissions from the new plant would be compensated by the closure of four other power plants.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Meadow Lake wind farm in Indiana. Anthony / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The first official tallies are in: Coronavirus-related shutdowns helped slash daily global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 percent in April. But the drop won't last, and experts estimate that annual emissions of the greenhouse gas are likely to fall only about 7 percent this year.
<p>After that, unless we make substantial changes to global economies, it will be back to business as usual — and a path that leads directly to runaway climate change. If we want to reverse course, say the world's leading scientists, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/" target="_blank">we have about a decade</a> to right the ship.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/stokes-clean-energy/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
<p>That's because we've squandered a lot of time. "The 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s were lost decades for preventing global climate disaster," political scientist <a href="https://www.leahstokes.com/" target="_blank">Leah Stokes</a> writes in her new book <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/short-circuiting-policy-9780190074265?cc=us&lang=en" target="_blank">Short Circuiting Policy</a></em><em>, </em>which looks at the history of clean energy policy in the U.S.</p><p>But we don't all bear equal responsibility for the tragic delay.</p><p>"Some actors in society have more power than others to shape how our economy is fueled," writes Stokes, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We are not all equally to blame."</p><p><em>Short Circuiting</em> <em>Policy</em> focuses on the role of one particularly bad actor: electric utilities. Their history of obstructing a clean-energy transition in the U.S. has been largely overlooked, with most of the finger-pointing aimed at fossil fuel companies (and for good reason).</p><p>We spoke with Stokes about this history of delay and denial from the utility industry, how to accelerate the speed and scale of clean-energy growth, and whether we can get past the polarizing rhetoric and politics around clean energy.</p>
What lessons can we learn from your research to guide us right now, in what seems like a really critical time in the fight to halt climate change?
<p>What a lot of people don't understand is that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we actually have to reduce emissions by around 7-8 percent <em>every single year</em> from now until 2030, which is what the emissions drop is likely to be this year because of the COVID-19 crisis.</p><p>So think about what it took to reduce emissions by that much and think about how we have to do that <em>every single year</em>.</p><p>It doesn't mean that it's going to be some big sacrifice, but it does mean that we need government policy, particularly at the federal level, because state policy can only go so far. We've been living off state policy for more than three decades now and we need our federal government to act.</p>Where are we now, in terms of our progress on renewable energy and how far we need to go?
<p>A lot of people think renewable energy is growing "so fast" and it's "so amazing." But first of all, during the coronavirus pandemic, the renewable energy industry is actually doing very poorly. It's losing a lot of jobs. And secondly, we were not moving fast enough even before the coronavirus crisis, because renewable energy in the<em> best </em>year grew by only 1.3 percent.</p><p>Right now we're at around 36-37 percent clean energy. That includes nuclear, hydropower and new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal. But hydropower and nuclear aren't growing. Nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the grid and hydro about 5 percent depending on the year. And then the rest is renewable. So we're at about 10 percent renewables, and in the best year, we're only adding 1 percent to that.</p><p>Generally, we need to be moving about eight times faster than we've been moving in our best years. (To visualize this idea, I came up with the <a href="https://grist.org/fix/how-quickly-do-we-need-to-ramp-up-renewables-look-to-the-narwhal/" target="_blank">narwhal curve</a>.)</p>How do we overcome these fundamental issues of speed and scale?
<p>We need actual government policy that supports it. We have never had a clean electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard at the federal level. That's the main law that I write all about at the state level. Where those policies are in place, a lot of progress has been made — places like California and even, to a limited extent, Texas.</p><p>We need our federal government to be focusing on this crisis. Even the really small, piecemeal clean-energy policies we have at the federal level are going away. In December Congress didn't extend the investment tax credit and the production tax credit, just like they didn't extend or improve the electric vehicle tax credit.</p><p>And now during the COVID-19 crisis, a lot of the money going toward the energy sector in the CARES Act is going toward propping up <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-15/-stealth-bailout-shovels-millions-of-dollars-to-oil-companies" target="_blank">dying fossil fuel companies</a> and not toward supporting the renewable energy industry.</p><p>So we are moving in the wrong direction.</p>Clean energy hasn’t always been such a partisan issue. Why did it become so polarizing?
<p>What I argue in my book, with evidence, is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies have been intentionally driving polarization. And they've done this in part by running challengers in primary elections against Republicans who don't agree with them.</p><p>Basically, fossil fuel companies and electric utilities are telling Republicans that you can't hold office and support climate action. That has really shifted the incentives within the party in a very short time period.</p><p>It's not like the Democrats have moved so far left on climate. The Democrats have stayed in pretty much the same place and the Republicans have moved to the right. And I argue that that's because of electric utilities and fossil fuel companies trying to delay action.</p>And their reason for doing that is simply about their bottom line and keeping their share of the market?
<p>Exactly. You have to remember that delay and denial on climate change is a profitable enterprise for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. The longer we wait to act on the crisis, the more money they can make because they can extract more fossil fuels from their reserves <em>and</em> they can pay more of their debt at their coal plants and natural gas plants. So delay and denial is a money-making business for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.</p>There’s been a lot of research, reporting and even legal action in recent years about the role of fossil fuel companies in discrediting climate science. From reading your book, it seems that electric utilities are just as guilty. Is that right?
<p>Yes, far less attention has been paid to electric utilities, which play a really critical role. They preside over legacy investments into coal and natural gas, and some of them continue to propose building new natural gas.</p><p>They were just as involved in promoting climate denial in the 1980s and 90s as fossil fuel companies, as I document in my book. And some of them, like Southern Company, have continued to promote climate denial to basically the present day.</p><p>But that's not the only dark part of their history.</p><p>Electric utilities promoted energy systems that are pretty wasteful. They built these centralized fossil fuel power plants rather than having co-generation plants that were onsite at industrial locations where manufacturing is happening, and where you need both steam heat — which is a waste product from electricity — and the electricity itself. That actually created a lot of waste in the system and we burned a lot more fossil fuels than if we had a decentralized system.</p><p><span></span>The other thing they've done in the more modern period is really resisted the energy transition. They've resisted renewable portfolio standards and net metering laws that allow for more clean energy to come onto the grid. They've tried to roll them back. They've been successful in some cases, and they've blocked new laws from passing when targets were met.</p>You wrote that, “Partisan polarization on climate is not inevitable — support could shift back to the bipartisanship we saw before 2008.” What would it take to actually make that happen?
<p>Well, on the one hand, you need to get the Democratic Party to care more about climate change and to really understand the stakes. And if you want to do that, I think the work of the <a href="https://www.justicedemocrats.com/" target="_blank">Justice Democrats</a> is important. They have primary-challenged incumbent Democrats who don't care enough about climate change. That is how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected. She was a primary challenger and she has really championed climate action in the Green New Deal.</p><p>The other thing is that the public supports climate action. Democrats do in huge numbers. Independents do. And to some extent Republicans do, particularly young Republicans.</p><p>So communicating the extent of public concern on these issues is really important because, as I've shown in other research, politicians don't know how much public concern there is on climate change. They dramatically underestimate support for climate action.</p><p>I think the media has a really important role to play because it's very rare that a climate event, like a disaster that is caused by climate change, is actually linked to climate change in media reporting.</p><p>But people might live through a wildfire or a hurricane or a heat wave, but nobody's going to tell them through the media that this is climate change. So we really need our reporters to be doing a better job linking people's lived experiences to climate change.</p>With economic stimulus efforts ramping up because of the COVD-19 pandemic, are we in danger of missing a chance to help boost a clean energy economy?
<p>I think so many people understand that stimulus spending is an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a way that creates good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that protects Americans' health.</p><p>We know that <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19" target="_blank">breathing dirty air</a> makes people more likely to die from COVID-19. So this is a big opportunity to create an economy that's more just for all Americans.</p><p>But unfortunately, we really are not pivoting toward creating a clean economy, which is what we need to be doing. This is an opportunity to really focus on the climate crisis because we have delayed for more than 30 years. There is not another decade to waste.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Both Conservatives and Liberals Want a Green Energy Future, but ... ›
- 40 Million Health Workers Endorse Green Recovery - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin Sits on $43 Billion Intended for Clean Energy Loans ... ›
- The U.S. Could Get to 90 Percent Clean Power by 2035 - EcoWatch ›
- The U.S. Could Get to 90 Percent Clean Power by 2035 - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
Working From Home During the Pandemic Has Environmental Benefits — But We Can Do Even Better
24 May
Insights + Opinion
Junjira Konsang / Pixabay
By Matt Casale
For many Americans across the country, staying home to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) means adapting to long-term telework for the first time. We're doing a lot more video conferencing and working out all the kinks that come along with it.
<p>While this particular situation is not ideal for many — for example, I'm currently writing this with an infant in a baby carrier on my chest and our almost-three-year-old belting "Let It Go" in the background — in many ways we're playing out a real-time experiment on whether telecommuting is possible on a large scale.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDc5NTEzOH0.UPtJT4Pjinn-wiHkF4vbFGF_2M2R3DrqPh_VGN_mPxQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="61bc2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4aeee8da3400abc67c12130a6bbe03ae" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The author (above) wrote this while working from home, baby in tow. Emily Anderson (author's wife/home office mate)
<p>The coronavirus will pass, but it's looking more and more like remote work will stick around. This time has demonstrated that, despite the ups and downs many of us have experienced, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/04/06/telecommuting-will-likely-continue-long-after-the-pandemic/" target="_blank">telework works</a> for way more of us than we knew.</p><p>Even before this we knew that there were several benefits for both employers and employees to sidestepping the office. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrealoubier/2017/07/20/benefits-of-telecommuting-for-the-future-of-work/#3f278e0916c6" target="_blank">Studies have shown</a> that it can lead to increased productivity, higher morale and lower employee turnover. It can also reduce real estate and office operation costs for employers.</p><p>We may now also be seeing some larger societal benefits that make the case for taking telework even further. Our current situation has provided a window into how a reduction in driving, buoyed, in part, by a greater adoption of telework, could relieve some of the stress on our overburdened transportation system and help heal at least a portion of the environmental damage it causes.</p><p>Today, roads that would normally clogged at all hours of the day are <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-empty-airports-trains-roads-during-coronavirus" target="_blank">virtually empty</a>, even during rush hour. And the reduced car travel leads to fewer crashes and less air pollution, which harms human health and contributes to global warming. Air that's usually cloudy with smog has cleared. Los Angeles, which has notoriously pollution-choked skies, could recently boast having the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/us/los-angeles-pollution-clean-air-coronavirus-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">cleanest air in the world</a>. And this year, experts predict, the transportation transformation will contribute to the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-set-to-cause-largest-ever-annual-fall-in-co2-emissions" target="_blank">largest-ever annual decline in global carbon emissions</a>.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODAzNTcyNX0.2WzQzdHTSN6ob08B_hb9WcYdlBeUtg53i1RoYGIO1Do/img.jpg?width=980" id="44ac4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ea0ed6763606e660a909d62f41f9d54f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Virtually empty Los Angeles streets on May 7. Chris Yarzab / CC BY 2.0
<p>Clearly not every job can be done from home, and it's not just commuting for work that has come to a halt during coronavirus lockdowns. In 2017 only around <a href="https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf" target="_blank">28 percent</a> of total miles driven were work-related. Even if telework continues or expands on a much larger scale, non-work-related car trips — shopping, recreation, visits to doctors and the like — can be expected to go back to normal.</p><p>Still, telework's potential for taking cars off the road can clearly have an impact on global warming emissions and air pollution. Just how much of an impact could telework have? As it turns out, the answer is a significant one — and with a few important steps, the benefits can be even greater and more sustainable.</p>How Much of the Workforce Could Reasonably and Permanently Transition to Telework?
<p>According to the U.S. Census Bureau, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/13/people-who-work-from-home-earn-more-than-those-who-commuteheres-why.html" target="_blank">5.2 percent of U.S. workers</a> — around 8 million people — worked from home in 2017. But that's still just a fraction of potential teleworkers. Earlier this month researchers at the University of Chicago found that <a href="https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_White-Paper_Dingel_Neiman_3.2020.pdf" target="_blank">37 percent of U.S. jobs can plausibly be performed at home</a>. The U.S. workforce reached <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV" target="_blank">164.5 million</a> in February 2020, before the pandemic, meaning approximately 61 million of those workers could plausibly telework permanently once the economy starts up again.</p><p>Of course, the full economic consequences of this public health crisis are still unknown. It's possible that coronavirus-related job losses will impact the overall number of those employed for some time. But for these purposes, this assumption of 53 million new remote workers will be useful to illustrate the potential impacts of telework.</p>How Much Driving Would Full-Capacity Telework Avoid?
<p>In 2019 Americans drove a total <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315" target="_blank">3.23 trillion miles</a>, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The DoE doesn't break that down by reasons driving, but we know that in 2017 there were <a href="https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf" target="_blank">683 billion total commute miles</a> driven. Reducing the commuting workforce by about 32 percent (37 percent of total workers who could telecommute minus the 5.2 percent of them who already do) would theoretically decrease commuting totals by about 219 billion miles.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDE5NzkwNn0.NsQ8r0Opjbst4FFYG9IGfKIkekxBMPGG8viKKCB9Afc/img.jpg?width=980" id="f3198" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bbf1191abdd0b796a70fbb2a36b827e2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A traffic jam on January 17. Raphael Labaca Castro / CC BY-SA 2.0
<p>Of course telecommuting won't let us avoid logging <em>all</em> of those miles, since people may occasionally still need to travel to an office for meetings and may need to make new trips they wouldn't otherwise have taken (you can't stop at the grocery store on the way home from work when you work at home). Various studies have found that telecommuting actually reduces driving somewhere between <a href="https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/telecommuting/telecommuting_brief120313.pdf" target="_blank">60 and 90</a> percent of commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT). We'll split the difference and calculate that telework reduces commute miles by about 75%, meaning the new teleworkers could avoid around 164 billion miles driven.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY4OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODE3NzE2NH0.x6snYt1idN9K7pPfL-rp11ITuPasCu09GYlTXCmZqH0/img.jpg?width=980" id="7175e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2862401e39968c61d3a00f932157acd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center
<p>Still, that much of a transformation may not work for everyone, as people will still need to do face-to-face work — and, let's be honest, the other thing the lockdowns have taught us is to appreciate the value of regular social contact. That said, even if most people worked from home two to three days a week and the actual VMT reduction were closer to 2 or 3 percent, the difference would still be significant — especially considering that VMT has been <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315" target="_blank">steadily rising</a> since the 1970s, except for a few years during economic downturns. Even if just a quarter of American workers started working from home one day a week, total vehicle miles traveled would fall by <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063006473" target="_blank">1</a> percent — not a huge amount, but enough to make a difference on a grander scale.</p>Impact on Global Warming Emissions
<p>The cars and trucks we drive every day are major sources of air pollution and global warming emissions. Transportation as a whole accounts for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">28</a> percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., more than any other source. Light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty trucks are responsible for<a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions" target="_blank"> 82</a> percent of the transportation sector's emissions.</p><p>The average American car or SUV emits <a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle" target="_blank">404 grams</a> of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile traveled. So reducing commuting by 164 billion miles would avoid 66 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. These are significant emissions reductions, but they'd only make a small dent in total transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, which reached nearly <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">1.9 billion metric tons</a> in 2018.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY4OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTEzMDQ2N30.kNeCqEqhHQcOV8p2HMENkbOtLoShEGEsXOycpTdlxco/img.jpg?width=980" id="e7f7b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ce9e7ab7f9c21489e7487b820813367e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Nevertheless, it would help us move in the right direction. And while it only represents a small percentage of total emissions, it would still be the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator" target="_blank">equivalent</a> of more eliminating emissions from than 7 million homes' total energy use for one year, or the same as shutting down more than 16 coal-fired power plants.</p>
Impact on Health-harming Air Pollution
<p>People across America regularly breathe polluted air, which increases their risk of attacks and other adverse health impacts, and even premature death. In fact, in 2018 <a href="https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/EnvironmentAmerica_TroubleintheAir_scrn.pdf" target="_blank">108 million Americans</a> lived in areas that experienced more than 100 days of degraded air quality. Our cars and trucks are a major source of this pollution, which includes ozone, particulate matter and other smog-forming emissions.</p><p>There's a reason the air has cleared over many of our major cities during the coronavirus lockdowns. When you remove cars from the road, you also remove smog. The lockdowns have resulted in an extreme reduction of VMT — between <a href="https://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/america-pause-vehicle-travel-during-covid-19-and-what-comes-next" target="_blank">68 and 72</a> percent across the country (and in some places closer to 90 percent). Assuming that telework has contributed something close to its peak potential reduction of 7 percent, it seems likely that it has played at least a supporting role in helping to clear our skies.</p>Additional Emissions Reductions From Reduced Traffic
<p>The average American commuter wastes <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/us/traffic-commute-gridlock-transportation-study-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">54 hours</a> a year stuck in traffic. That's lost time with friends and families, lost productivity at work, wasted money, tons of unnecessary stress, and a lot more pollution from idling cars.</p><p>Traffic patterns are complicated because traffic is <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/12/4-steps-to-tackling-traffic-congestion/" target="_blank">non-linear</a>, meaning there isn't a one-to-one ratio of percentage of cars removed to percentage of traffic alleviated. As such, just a <a href="https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2017/the-access-almanac-traffic-congestion-is-counter-intuitive-and-fixable/" target="_blank">few extra cars</a> on or off the road can have an outsize impact on traffic. Reducing commute VMT by up to 7 percent would have a huge impact on rush hour traffic (when bottlenecks are at their worst and most of that driving occurs). A greater adoption of telework could give people back some of those 54 hours so they can spend it doing the things that matter to them. And slow moving or stop and go traffic results in <a href="https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2009/traffic-congestion-greenhouse-gases/" target="_blank">greater emissions</a> than free-flowing traffic. So freeing up the roads and alleviating traffic for the remaining will result in even greater emissions reductions.</p>What Needs to Happen for Telework to Live Up to Its Potential?
<p>It's clear that telework can have significant societal benefits, including less global warming pollution and cleaner skies. But significant benefits are only possible if everyone whose job could plausibly be done from home has that opportunity.</p><p>To reach that goal, several barriers must be overcome:</p><p><em>Technology: </em>We've all had technical mix-ups when using Zoom or Google Hangouts or one of the other conferencing platforms. But the real technological barrier is access to broadband. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-has-home-broadband" target="_blank">Roughly three-quarters</a> of American adults have broadband internet service at home, but the rate of access is much lower in rural parts of the country, according to a report by Pew Research Center. Those locations often don't have broadband infrastructure and even <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/04/06/telecommuting-will-likely-continue-long-after-the-pandemic/" target="_blank">14</a> percent of households in urban areas lack access, usually because they are not able to afford it. States should make funding available to develop broadband capacity in underserved areas.</p><p><em>Employer policies and managerial reluctance</em>: Coronavirus lockdowns across the country have forced employers and managers to adapt to large-scale telework quickly on an emergency basis, meaning these barriers are less likely relevant now than before. But general employer and manager <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683455.pdf" target="_blank">reluctance</a> to embrace working from home has slowed this transition. Cities and states can encourage employer acceptance of telework by providing <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/07/25/gov-baker-proposes-telecommuting-tax-break-for-companies" target="_blank">tax benefits</a> or other incentives for greater adoption.</p><p><em>Car-centered transportation policies: </em>Our current transportation policies often incentivize driving or parking. From commuter and parking benefits to decades of outsized spending on <a href="https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/highway-boondoggles-5" target="_blank">highway infrastructure</a>, we tip the scales toward getting behind an automobile's wheel. In other words, our transportation policies are meant to move cars rather than incentivize things, such as telework, that would take cars off the road.</p><p>We need to rethink this approach and shift toward better "<a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/trans_demand.htm" target="_blank">Transportation Demand Management</a>." This requires the implementation of a set of strategies aimed at maximizing traveler choices. Those strategies should include greater employer and employee incentives for telework, as well as policies designed to facilitate more walking, biking, ridesharing, vanpooling and public transportation use.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMxMzY5MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzUwNTM5OX0.9ePNI--qrX2Z32AA7sgDeU5lwKBZtReALXYY8Y9b_Sc/img.jpg?width=980" id="a9e3d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d41b19fddabdda0afee848bbc5b6c005" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/telework-environmental-benefits/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>Bikeshare in Milan, October 2019. Guilhem Vellut / CC BY 2.0
<p>That's important, because the potential gains we'd see from telework would only be sustained if that shift were paired with other policies to ensure those commuter miles aren't just replaced with other trips. We usually talk about this in relation to widening or building new highways, but when you open up highway capacity, it usually fills quickly. This is what the wonks call "<a href="https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/highway-boondoggles-5" target="_blank">induced demand</a>." People who otherwise would have driven at a different time of day, taken a different route, taken public transportation or would have avoided traffic on the highway some other way, come back to the road. The same could happen here if additional measures aren't taken.</p><p>It's likely that, even after the coronavirus lockdowns are over, telework is going to become more and more common in the American workforce. As it does, the environmental benefits will be significant. In a time when climate change presents an existential threat to life as we know it and millions of people across the world are subjected to unhealthy levels of air pollution, we need to be taking an all-hands-on-deck approach to solving these problems. Telework can clearly be a significant part of the long-term solution — especially if we take further steps to maximize its potential.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Social Distancing Is Also Helping the Climate - EcoWatch ›
- Working From Home? Why Detachment Is Crucial for Mental Health ›
- Earth Is Shaking a Lot Less Now That Everyone Is Staying Home ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
View of a windmill farm in the Tehuantepec Isthmus region, Mexico, on July 27, 2017. PATRICIA CASTELLANOS / AFP / Getty Images
By Sam Edwards
The Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico is one of the windiest places on earth. Hemmed in by two mountain ranges, the flat strip of land between the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico is a natural wind tunnel. A single gust can flip over cars. It's the perfect place for turbines.
<p>The unique geography of the isthmus has brought it mixed fortunes. Union Hidalgo, once a sleepy, agrarian town, is among the predominantly indigenous communities in the area that began experiencing a "wind rush" in the 2000s. Some dubbed it "La Nueva Conquista" — the new conquest — as large, often European, corporations hurried to harness the isthmus' natural power.</p><p>Like so many in this area, Guadalupe Ramirez's home in Union Hidalgo is dwarfed by seemingly endless rows of wind turbines.</p><p>In 2009, Ramirez, an indigenous Zapotec housewife-turned-activist now in her 60s, signed a 30-year lease for her land to be used for a wind power project. She has been fighting ever since to ensure others are better informed than she was before making a similar deal.</p><p>"We want people to be informed of what will come [with new wind parks], to know that it won't just bring benefits but also many problems," she told DW. "When people have all the facts, it won't be so easy to convince them."</p><p>Ramirez and other activists argue that Mexico's wind farms bring little or no economic benefit to the local community. They also compete for space with small-scale farming, the main source of income for many in the town.</p><p>The principle problem, though, lies with the fraught consultation process. Under Mexican law indigenous communities should be given a deciding vote on projects but in practice, activists say, the information they are given beforehand is often incomplete or misleading, and those opposed to new developments sometimes face harassment and intimidation.</p><p>Ramirez is now placing her hopes on an ongoing legal battle that could shape the course of clean energy in Mexico by halting the latest controversial project before construction begins.</p>
Clean Energy at a Price
<p>The Gunaa Sicaru wind park is planned to be built next to Union Hidalgo. Run by French energy giant EDF, it would provide 252 megawatts of power. But first it needs approval from locals through an ongoing public consultation. And as for many multinational-backed wind parks in Oaxaca, that's proving a challenge.</p><p>In a country historically reliant on oil revenue, wind power and other renewables could bring a transition to cleaner energy. But Alejandra Ancheita, director of NGO ProDESC, warns green power must not replicate the environmental harm and mishandling of local communities typical of the global fossil fuel sector.</p><p>"Renewable energy projects can't be justified solely on the basis they are creating clean energy," Ancheita told DW. "It's not 'clean energy' if it isn't developed with a strict respect for the local communities where the project will be built."</p><p><span></span>ProDESC's legal team represents a group of Union Hidalgo residents in an injunction against EDF and local authorities, alleging violations of the consultation process. The NGO claims the local authorities and EDF failed to provide accurate information on the project's impacts and distributed misleading translations from Spanish to Zapotec.</p>Community Conflict
<p>Ramirez and other local activists say oil runoff from the turbines that already dominate the landscape pollutes waterways, while the sound of the wind farms — many of which are close to towns — disturbs residents and local birdlife.</p><p>But while Ramirez and others fight to prevent further damage to their land, some in Union Hidalgo support the development, particularly those who can earn a steady income from leasing their land.</p><p>"It's creating a lot of division in our community," Ramirez said.</p><p>According to a report by the Berlin-based <a href="https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Publikationen/ECCHR_PP_WINDPARK.pdf" target="_blank">European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights</a> (ECCHR), conflict in the community escalated in 2018, after critics of the project were condemned as "enemies of development" in the EDF consultation meetings.</p><p>ProDESC and ECCHR said in a formal letter last year, that the company needed to do more to prevent conflict in the community.</p><p>EDF told DW it had met its obligations in the consultation process for Gunaa Sicaru but it was the Mexican authorities who ultimately bore the responsibility for ensuring residents were informed and free to make a decision. EDF has received no reports of threats against critics of the Gunaa Sicaru project, the company added.</p><p>The Oaxaca state government did not respond to DW's request for comment.</p>Future of Clean Energy
<p>Mexico, one of the world's top 15 carbon emitters, has committed to producing 35% of its electricity from clean energy by 2024. Renewables have drawn significant interest from investors since a reform opened the sector to private investment in 2013. Both the solar and wind sectors reported record growth last year.</p><p>But observers fear the future of renewables is uncertain under President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado. Lisa Viscidi, from think tank The Inter-American Dialogue, told DW that regulatory changes under the current administration are undermining incentives to invest in the sector. Winning consent from communities in Oaxaca has been another significant challenge. A 2019 report authored by Viscidi on Mexico's first clean energy auction found several projects had been delayed due to a failure to get the community on board.</p>Alternative Development
<p>The challenges of wind energy in Oaxaca are not unique.</p><p>The transition to renewables will be an "epochal shift" in most countries, says Cymene Howe, an anthropologist with Rice University in Texas and author of a book about wind energy in Oaxaca. That's because energy infrastructure will move into parts of the planet untouched by fossil fuel industries.</p><p>"[It will be] a fundamental shift in how we imagine landscapes, what land is to be used for, who lives there and who has responsibility," she said. "This is a new frontier."</p><p>In Union Hidalgo, Ramirez says the conflicts over wind parks have already forced some people to move elsewhere searching for work or new land to farm. She fears that if Gunaa Sicaru goes ahead, the town will soon be bordered on most sides by wind turbines and unable to grow.</p><p>"No one is coming here to force us off our land. [But] one day we'll have to leave ourselves because we won't be able to handle being surrounded," Ramirez said.</p><p>For her, it is not about stifling wind power development, but empowering locals to shape it — for example through community-owned wind parks that would funnel profits back into the local community.</p><p><span></span>"Development can take many forms," Ramirez said.</p>From Your Site Articles
- The Promising Future for Solar and Wind Energy - EcoWatch ›
- Renewable Sources Made up 72% of New Energy Added in 2019 ... ›
- For Indigenous Zapotec Families, Spinning Becomes a Lifeline ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Aerial view of a wind farm near The Øresund Bridge in Sweden on June 26, 2018. Maxym Marusenko / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Johnny Wood
What does COVID-19 mean for the energy transition? While lockdowns have caused a temporary fall in CO2 emissions, the pandemic risks derailing recent progress in addressing the world's energy challenges.
<p>The current state of the sector is described in the World Economic Forum's <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/fostering-effective-energy-transition-2020" target="_blank">Energy Transition Index 2020</a>. It benchmarks the energy systems of 115 economies, highlighting the leading players in the race to net-zero emissions, as well as those with work to do.<br><br>With pressure to get idle economies back to "normal," the short-term shift to a more sustainable energy sector could be in doubt. But the current crisis also presents an opportunity to rethink how our energy needs are met, and consider the long-term impact on the planet.</p>
Unprecedented Change
<p>The past decade has seen rapid transformations as countries move towards clean energy generation, supply and consumption. Coal-fired power plants have been retired, as reliance on natural gas and emissions-free renewable energy sources increases. Incremental gains have been made from carbon pricing initiatives.</p><p>Since 2015, 94 of 115 countries have improved their combined score on the Energy Translation Index (ETI), which analyzes each country's readiness to adopt clean energy using three criteria: energy access and security; environmental sustainability; and economic development and growth.<br><br>But the degree of change and the timetable for reaching net-zero emissions differ greatly between countries, and taken as a whole, today's advances are insufficient to meet the climate targets set by the Paris Agreement.</p>The 10 Countries Most Prepared for the Energy Transition
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI3OTU4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDQ0NjQ4MX0.SumXaqZnlWq6pBIoqAggmvg9LDqI_Vqn984i3YL1yhU/img.png?width=980" id="53351" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d6767a8b912d7699fb087ecff33ce3f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Sweden is the nation most ready to transition to sustainable energy. WEF Fostering Effective Energy Transition 2020 edition
<p>Sweden tops the overall ETI ranking for the third consecutive year as the country most ready to transition to clean energy, followed by Switzerland and Finland. There has been little change in the top 10 since the last report, which demonstrates the energy stability of these developed nations, although the gap with the lowest-ranked countries is closing.<br><br>Top-ranked countries share a reduced reliance on imported energy, lower energy subsidies and a strong political commitment to transforming their energy sector to meet climate targets.<br><br>The UK and France are the only two G20 economies in the top 10 however, which is otherwise made up of smaller nations.</p>
Powerful Shocks
<p>Outside the top 10, progress has been modest in Germany. Ranked 20th, the country has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants and moving industrial output to cleaner fuels such as hydrogen, but making energy services affordable remains a struggle.</p><p>China, ranked 78th, has made strong advances in controlling CO2 emissions by switching to electric vehicles and investing heavily in solar and wind energy - it currently has the world's largest solar PV and onshore wind capacity. Alongside China, countries including Argentina, India and Italy have shown consistent strong improvements every year. Gains over time have also been recorded by Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Kenya and Oman, among others.</p><p>But high energy-consuming countries including the US, Canada and Brazil show little, if any, progress towards an energy transition.</p><p>In the US (ranked 32nd), moves to establish a more sustainable energy sector have been hampered by policy decisions. Neighboring Canada grapples with the conflicting demands of a growing economy and the need to decarbonize the energy sector.</p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder of the impact of external shocks on the global economy. As climate change increases the likelihood of weather extremes such as floods, droughts and violent storms, the need for more sustainable energy practices is intensified.</p><p>Policy-makers need to develop a robust framework for energy transition at local, national and international levels, capable of guarding against such shocks.<br><br>"The coronavirus pandemic offers an opportunity to consider unorthodox intervention in the energy markets, and global collaboration to support a recovery that accelerates the energy transition once the acute crisis subsides," says Roberto Bocca, Head of Energy & Materials at the World Economic Forum.</p><p>"This giant reset grants us the option to launch aggressive, forward-thinking and long-term strategies leading to a diversified, secure and reliable energy system that will ultimately support the future growth of the world economy in a sustainable and equitable way."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/energy-transition-index-2020-eti-clean-sustainable-power/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Corporate Leaders to Trump: Withdrawing From the Paris ... ›
- This Country Is Already Carbon Neutral and Now Plans to Go 100 ... ›
- Morocco Leading the World Toward a Green Energy Future ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette says that Secretary Steven Mnuchin, pictured, worked with the Federal Reserve to bail out mid-size oil companies.
Two top administration officials, at the direction of President Trump, helped the Federal Reserve alter its lending program intended to bail out small businesses specifically to aid mid-size oil companies, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg TV this week.
<p>"Secretary Mnuchin worked very closely with the Federal Reserve ... and made that program available to what we refer to as mid-cap-sized companies," Brouillette said Tuesday. The Fed, which is legally prohibited from targeting specific sectors for relief, denied that it changed the emergency lending program in order to aid the oil sector. Oil and gas companies lobbied the Fed over the first weeks of the pandemic to ease eligibility requirements and use restrictions for the program, and the Fed altered its requirements in late April, a move praised by oil-state lawmakers and the oil and gas industry.</p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><em>Brouillette claims: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-12/energy-chief-says-fed-was-asked-to-expand-lending-for-oil-firms?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87851446&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NmrI66CzajonN3JQNlAne8qxX2lcRj3Jtb7PUK0Xt-8eepJvd7qHlAP-_yfBQ80kRH5i67doW75pf_Rg_i1txI8l6Ib6fpZTUqPsFu1BXW9Ihfdo&_hsmi=87851446" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>. April Fed program changes: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/30/main-street-loans-coronavirus/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87851446&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NmrI66CzajonN3JQNlAne8qxX2lcRj3Jtb7PUK0Xt-8eepJvd7qHlAP-_yfBQ80kRH5i67doW75pf_Rg_i1txI8l6Ib6fpZTUqPsFu1BXW9Ihfdo&_hsmi=87851446" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2020/05/11/oil-and-gas-companies-asked-then-received-changes-to-fed-coronavirus-stimulus-program/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87851446&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NmrI66CzajonN3JQNlAne8qxX2lcRj3Jtb7PUK0Xt-8eepJvd7qHlAP-_yfBQ80kRH5i67doW75pf_Rg_i1txI8l6Ib6fpZTUqPsFu1BXW9Ihfdo&_hsmi=87851446" target="_blank">NPR State Impact</a>, <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/04/30/fed-change-allows-oil-companies-to-qualify-for-recovery-loans/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87851446&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NmrI66CzajonN3JQNlAne8qxX2lcRj3Jtb7PUK0Xt-8eepJvd7qHlAP-_yfBQ80kRH5i67doW75pf_Rg_i1txI8l6Ib6fpZTUqPsFu1BXW9Ihfdo&_hsmi=87851446" target="_blank">Roll Call</a>, </em><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/30/feds-expansion-of-lending-program-sparks-oil-bailout-worries-227545?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87851446&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NmrI66CzajonN3JQNlAne8qxX2lcRj3Jtb7PUK0Xt-8eepJvd7qHlAP-_yfBQ80kRH5i67doW75pf_Rg_i1txI8l6Ib6fpZTUqPsFu1BXW9Ihfdo&_hsmi=87851446" target="_blank"><em>Politico</em></a><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/buffett-backed-solar-project-near-vegas-wins-trump-blessing?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=87782018&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--TNVauhW3bvDHKpcc7GzS09_vXwDgTZ1ok8ohBT7dEKo4yo_-GOJeQxLtP5ZVk4pJVt4Y4QHQZWtAUpYbnAyjiPb-xVUTAkSMs9abNMrNgYCbQ_UM&_hsmi=87782018" target="_blank"></a></p><p class=""><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Blasted for 'Morally Bankrupt' Multibillion-Dollar Big Oil ... ›
- 'We Need People's Bailout, Not Polluters' Bailout': Climate Groups ... ›
- Trump Bails Out Oil Industry, Not U.S. Families, as Coronavirus ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less