Jerry Brown, the governor of California, made no bones about the dangers of climate change at a public hearing last week, calling it a “threat to organized human existence.” As the Trump Administration removes the U.S. from the frontline in the battle against climate change, cities and states have stepped forward to fill the void.

Monday evening, after hours of intense debate and an energized push from Brown himself, California lawmakers voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The current system, implemented in 2012, is set to expire in 2020. Extending the program, which Brown has been trying to spread to other states, has galvanized critics from two disparate corners: liberals and environmental groups who think it is too cautious, and Republicans who see it as a job killer.

But Brown, at 79 and nearing the end of his fourth term in office, has argued cap-and-trade is an effective way to combat carbon emissions while allowing economic growth.

“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,” Brown told lawmakers at the four-hour public hearing last week, after introducing the cap-and-trade extension bill. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.”

Brown has positioned himself as a buffer against President Donald Trump’s systematic unraveling of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations. In the wake of Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Brown and a number of other governors and mayors have soothed concerns at home and abroad. Brown recently traveled to China to talk climate change, and will attend a climate summit in Germany later this year.

While other governors and mayors have pledged to double-down on green initiatives and other carbon-cutting regulations, Brown has remained steadfast in his cap-and-trade approach. Championed by those who would like to fight climate change with a market-based system, cap-and-trade issues limited permits to carbon-producing companies, dictating how much carbon they can emit in a given time period. Some permits are free, others are auctioned off; companies can then sell, buy, and trade permits among each other.

But Brown’s extension effort received pushback from environmental groups and state lawmakers. Senate Republicans sent a letter last week to Brown, expressing their opposition to the bill, which is paired with another measure that seeks to improve air quality.

“We are committed to protecting and enhancing California’s environment,” a group of state Republican lawmakers wrote, adding that the cap-and-trade program is a “crushing blow to California residents and small business negatively impacting their quality of life.”

California progressives have also criticized the plan, though for a vastly different reason: many say it does not do enough to halt carbon emissions. Environmental justice groups see Brown’s bill as a capitulation to the oil and gas industry, and argue it includes too many compromises to pro-industry Republicans and moderate Democrats.

“It’s California climate policy that’s been written by big oil,” Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, recently said about the bill. “At a time when all eyes are on California, we have to stand strong and say this is not something we can support.”

After the bill passed Monday night, Brown applauded Californians for standing against “the existential threat of our time” by extending the cap-and-trade program. He also thanked both Republicans and Democrats who “set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Extends Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump revived the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, creating a quandary for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. How does he balance support for the climate, a cornerstone issue for him, while also supporting a job-creating project that environmental groups–in Canada and the U.S.–generally oppose? This is a question that had the usually tranquil leader a tad flustered during a town hall meeting at the University of Calgary on Tuesday evening.

A man in a “Make America Great Again” cap told Trudeau, who supports the pipeline project, but signaled the need to “phase out” drilling in Canada’s oil sands, he is either a “liar” or “confused.” Trudeau replied: “If you know the oil sands, sir, you know the kinds of innovation, the kinds of advances, the kind of high technology, and research that’s being done, right here at the University of Calgary.”

This is the balancing act that Trudeau has found himself performing in a country rich in oil reserves yet with an equally rich tradition of environmental protection. A former executive at TransCanada, the company that is building the Keystone XL pipeline, told The New York Times the prime minister must strike a delicate balance. “The country needs to find a balance between a credible carbon policy and seizing this economic opportunity,” Dennis McConaghy said.

Trump revived the pipeline with an executive order on Tuesday. He promised to “renegotiate” the contract with TransCanada. While there is a long way to go before construction on the pipeline resumes, Trump’s executive action signals a new U.S. stance on the issue. President Obama, who initially supported parts of the pipeline, shelved the project in 2015. The pipeline would transfer 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Alberta oil sands to Nebraska, where existing pipelines would shuffle it to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of temporary jobs would be created if construction resumes.

Trudeau seems confident the project is a responsible way to bolster Canada’s economy while protecting its environment. “I have repeatedly said that yes, the responsibility of any Canadian prime minister is to get our resources to market and yes, that includes our oil-sands fossil fuels,” Trudeau said at Tuesday’s town hall. “We need to get those to market. I’ve also said we need to do that in a responsible, sustainable way. You cannot separate what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keystone XL Revival Puts Canadian PM Justin Trudeau in a Bind appeared first on Law Street.

Scandinavian countries are already among the best in the world when it comes to boasting low levels of carbon emissions, garbage recycling, and sustainable living. Sweden recycles 99 percent of its garbage, and now Norway has pledged to become climate neutral by 2030–20 years earlier than previously planned. Norway currently emits around 53 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

On Tuesday night the Norwegian parliament agreed to accelerate its CO2 cutting program to try and meet the carbon emission goals that were set for 2050 two decades sooner. But this might be hard to accomplish considering Norway’s major export products are oil and gas. The leader of the Norwegian Green Party Rasmus Hansson said: “This is a direct response to the commitments Norway took on by ratifying the Paris agreement and means that we will have to step up our climate action dramatically.”

The climate talks in Paris took place in December 2015 and resulted in the world’s first legally binding agreement concerning the global climate. In total, 196 countries agreed to keep global warming down and reduce emissions.

#Norway says it will be climate-neutral by 2030, accelerating goal by 20 years https://t.co/QFPSHGr2FT pic.twitter.com/sXpkBSbFYv

— The Local Norway (@TheLocalNorway) June 7, 2016

The ruling Progress and Conservative parties voted no to the proposal on Tuesday, with the argument that overly ambitious reductions today could result in interference with future climate negotiations.

However, the next step is for the government to go back to Parliament to discuss how to implement the change. Some ways to achieve the ambitious goal are to work for the reduction of gas-fueled cars (24 percent of the country’s cars are already electric), increase the use of wind power, and emissions trading.

At the end of May, Norway voted to commit to zero deforestation, making it the first country in the world to do so. This means that no product that has contributed to deforestation will be used or sold in Norway. The country has also donated money to other countries’ rainforest preservation efforts, such as Guyana and Brazil.

Norway’s commitment to zero deforestation led Alec Baldwin to tweet this video greeting:

Watch this clip of my greeting to my friends in Oslo. Thank you, @VidarHelgesen https://t.co/aDL65niVom

— AlecBaldwin (@AlecBaldwin) June 14, 2016

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was also in Oslo on Wednesday signing a deal for a closer cooperation between the nations on protecting the world’s forests.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Norway Vows to Be Carbon Neutral by 2030: 20 Years Earlier Than Planned appeared first on Law Street.

Globally, we eat more meat now than ever before. Cultures that traditionally held vegetarian diets have become steadily more meat-oriented. In many areas, meat is seen not only as a delicacy but also as a luxury expense and a symbol of status. As the production of meat has gone up in recent decades and the cost has steadily dropped, meat is now much more affordable than ever before. This has led to what is referred to as a “global meatification of our diets.”

However, this new trend carries with it a series of environmental burdens. The livestock industry creates enormous amounts of waste, generates pollution, and also releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

Waste

Vegetarian farming methods generally require large-scale irrigation and sometimes pesticides and fertilizers as well. Livestock farming, alternatively, requires keeping animals alive, which requires land, food, and water for the animals. Because of this, animal farms are also dependent on grain farms to create a food source for their animals. This food could be eaten by humans directly, but instead is used over a long period of time (in combination with a variety of animal growth hormones) to get an animal to an edible size. In fact, more than two-thirds of all agricultural land worldwide is dedicating to feeding livestock. In contrast, only eight percent of agricultural land produces food exclusively for humans. The land used for animal grazing, as well as the land that goes to specialized crop production for livestock animal diets, often causes mass scale deforestation: in the last 40 years, an estimated 40 percent of the Amazon trees were taken down with the vast majority of this land going to livestock feed production. Freshwater is also a finite resource that’s being used in mass quantities for irrigating animal feed and nourishing the animals.

“Pink.”courtesy of Rosalba Tarazona via Flickr

Every bite of meat that is eaten represents all the various inputs that went into raising that animal to adulthood. NPR published a report showing that a single quarter-pound of beef requires 6.7 pounds of grain, 52.5 gallons of water (for the cow’s personal needs and also for watering the crops it ate), 74.5 square feet of land for grazing, and 1,036 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of fossil fuel energy for food production and transport. If you calculate the amount of water required to sustain an American citizen, the average meat eater requires no less than 4,800 gallons whereas a vegan only needs 300. But when the average consumer eats a burger, all they will see is the finished product while the hidden costs remain unnoticed. Herein lies part of the problem with the meat industry: all of its worst elements aren’t ever visible to consumers who decide what kinds of food they want to spend their money on.

Fossil Fuels

First, fossil fuels are used to make the pesticides and fertilizers that keep grain crops growing rapidly and protected from insects. These inputs are essential to many of the traditional commercial vegetable farms throughout the world, which is a serious problem for the environment on its own. However, specialized grain or corn crops are created specifically to sustain livestock, which adds an unnecessary burden that wouldn’t exist without the meat industry. Carbon dioxide emissions also necessarily come with the large-scale transport of meat to grocery stores and restaurants throughout the world. Some of the largest meat-producing nations–such as the United States, Brazil, and the Netherlands–also export meat products to other countries, sometimes halfway around the world.

However, transportation actually only accounts for about six percent of livestock emissions. Ten percent comes from manure storage and disposal, 39 percent comes from food processing and production, and 44 percent comes from enteric fermentation. Enteric fermentation is the process by which a cow’s stomach digests its food and releases greenhouse gasses as a result. Interestingly, while the typically unnatural corn-based diets (in concert with a constant stream of growth hormones and medications) dramatically worsen the health of cows, grass-fed cows actually release far more greenhouse gasses than corn-fed cows. This is because the roughage eaten by grass fed cows is high in cellulose, which is then broken down into methane during anaerobic digestion. In contrast, commercial farm cows generally subsist off of foods that are low in cellulose and high in simple sugars. Because of this, grass fed cows can release up to two to four times as much methane as commercial cows.

As a greenhouse gas, methane has as much as 86 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Methane only stays in the atmosphere for about 12 years while carbon dioxide can remain for hundreds; however, in terms of a greenhouse gas’s ability to rapidly impact global warming, methane is considered to be far more dangerous.

Methane emissions from a single dairy cow amount to the equivalent of up to 1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. Globally this adds up to the equivalent of  2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) calculated that cows contribute 53 percent of the world’s human-related nitrous oxide and 44 percent of its methane. There has been some debate over exactly how much the livestock industry contributes to climate change. The FAO claims that the livestock industry releases 14.5 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

However, the FAO’s analysis has been criticized for being conducted exclusively by livestock specialists, not environmental specialists, and for understating the extent of livestock’s impact on climate change by overlooking and undercounting related emissions sources. The FAO has also been criticized for having a partnership with the International Meat Secretariat and the International Dairy Federation. Current and former World Bank environmental specialists conducted their own study and argue that livestock actually accounts for 51 percent of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gasses–much more than the 14.5 percent estimated by the UN.

Livestock as a Public Health Issue

In some areas, the growth in meat consumption has had a positive impact on the diets of the local people. This is particularly true in food insecure regions such as some areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where meat is an important source of protein. However, the livestock industry has also posed a danger to public health in several facets of life. The first is simply through pollution. Fertilizers and pesticides used to grow feed crops are washed away in runoff and taken to streams and rivers. On farms, animal manure is swept away by that same runoff and taken to water sources where it can contaminate drinking water with fecal bacteria.

A red meat-based diet can also be unhealthy. Regular consumption of meat can raise cholesterol and lead to cardiovascular disease and cancer down the road. Furthermore, the unnatural diets and regimen of growth hormone that we administer to livestock essentially keeps them sick, which also requires constant medication. Almost 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in America are used for livestock and not for people.

“Vasikkakasvattamo” courtesy of Oikeutta eläimille via Flickr

The diets we force upon animals can also potentially impact our own health when we consume them. For instance, many of the pathogens and bacteria that develop in cows stomachs can be easily killed by our stomach acids. However, as we continue to modify their diets we’ve caused cow stomachs to become increasingly more acidic as well. In the worst case scenario, this could lead to dangerous pathogens, such as E.Coli, adapting to live in a more acidic environment and potentially being able to survive in our stomachs as well.

Conclusion

Despite many problems in the livestock industry, the popularity of meat is only projected to continue increasing. Some anticipate meat demand to double expected to double by 2020. Although some organizations dispute the validity of this projection, most agree that meat consumption will continue to increase in the coming years. If humans don’t manage to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, then the globally accepted goal of limiting warming to 2°C will be extremely difficult to accomplish. Without dramatic changes to the livestock industry, these reductions will never be able to happen.

A traditional meat-based diet simply isn’t sustainable for the entire planet. However, the majority of the current problems with the industry are far out of consumers’ sights. As long as meat continues to get cheaper and people enjoy how it tastes, its popularity will continue to grow as well. Greater transparency on the issues might change public perception of the industry and shift consumer attitudes. Another possible solution could be an increased emphasis on alternative lifestyles, whether they be vegetarian based or just focused on eating from small, more sustainable livestock farms. The FAO actually suggests that we intensify the commercial livestock industry in order to reduce and eliminate the greater degree of emissions that comes from grass fed cows as opposed to commercial farm cows. Whatever the method may be, it’s clear the world can’t continue to consume meat at such alarming rates.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the debate over livestock’s effect on climate change and its share of human-related emissions. Additional information has also been added about the implications for grass-fed cows on methane emissions and the environmental effect of commercial farms has been clarified. Additionally, methane is now thought to have 86 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, not 25 times as scientists previously believed. The post has been updated to reflect that change. Updates also add context the debate over the projected growth in meat demand by 2020.

References

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: The Role of Livestock in Climate Change

Food and Agricultural Organization of the Unite Nations: Key Facts and Findings

New York Times Opinion: FAO Yields to Meat Industry Pressure on Climate Change

Reuters: Grass-Fed Beef Packs a Punch to the Environment

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Health & Environmental Implications of U.S. Meat Consumption and Production

New Harvest: the World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change: Animal Agriculture

NPR: A Nation of Meat Eaters: See How it All Adds Up

Policy Mic: Farm Bill 2013: Small Farmers Can’t Make Money from Farming Anymore

Politifact: Rep. Louise Slaughter says 80 Percent of Antibiotics are Fed to Livestock

Salon: What Nobody Told Me About Small Farming: I Can’t Make a Living

Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment: Consequences of Increased Global Meat Consumption on the Environment – Trade in Virtual Water, Energy & Nutrients

United Nations News Centre: Rearing Cattle Produces more Greenhouse Gases than Driving Cars, New Report Warns

US Environmental Protection Agency: Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane

World Watch: Livestock and Climate Change

World Watch Institute: Is Meat Sustainable?

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Does the Livestock Industry Impact the Environment? appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

While debate still surrounds issues involving climate change, scientists have agreed that global carbon emissions must begin to be reduced by the year 2020 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Unsurprisingly, however, this agreement has spawned new debates concerning what to do about it. One solution that has gained political momentum in the past decade is a process commonly referred to as “Cap and Trade”.

What is Cap and Trade?

Cap and Trade, as one might surmise from its name, is a two-step system that attempts to definitively lower carbon emissions and provide an incentive for carbon-reducing technological innovations. In step one, a governing body (be it state, regional, federal, or global) sets a maximum limit of carbon emissions for all participating entities that is a certain degree lower than current emissions. Each year this cap will be gradually reduced until the coalition meets its reduction goal in x amount of years. Simple enough.

Step two involves quantifying the carbon emissions allowable under the cap into carbon credits or permits. Each permit would represent a definable amount, such as one ton of carbon emitted. These credits would then be distributed amongst polluting entities such as factories, refineries, companies, and others, forcing these entities to pollute no more than the amount of carbon credits they possess. If a company comes in under their pollution amount, they can sell their excess credits to carbon brokers or to other companies for a profit. In this way, the trade system incentivizes technological innovations that reduce carbon emissions and the companies that invest in them. In turn, companies that are in danger of exceeding their given amount or are in the process of implementing long-term carbon reduction plans, the results of which would not be seen for a number of years, will purchase carbon credits so as not to exceed their limit. The ability to purchase credits off the carbon market allows for flexibility in the way polluting entities choose to reduce their emissions. Overall, there are only as many credits as the cap allows, and as the cap is incrementally reduced each year, companies will gradually receive less credits, ensuring carbon emissions are reduced annually until a specific goal is reached.

What are some examples of Cap and Trade programs?

Cap and Trade systems exist at different levels of government and have been created for pollutants other than carbon. The 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, which created a permits program for sulfur pollution in an attempt to improve air quality, is seen as one of the earliest of these programs and is often hailed by advocates as a successful Cap and Trade program. However, carbon is the principal greenhouse gas affecting climate change, and proponents of Cap and Trade claim that this program can be adapted for carbon as well as a number of other pollutants.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, implemented the Cap and Trade system as part of its global approach to emissions reductions. The trading program is operated by the United Nations and binds 37 industrialized countries to global emissions reductions, using several carbon emission trading schemes to accomplish the task. The global carbon market is unfortunately, to a degree, at the mercy of global politicians as they attempt to negotiate a post-Kyoto program, with the first commitment period having ended in 2012. Also at the international level, the European Trading System is a carbon Cap and Trade system created in 2005 and run by the European Union. This trading program is factory-based and distributes its emissions credits to individual companies, factories, power plants, etc. Because of this, the European Trading System is the largest Cap and Trade system in the world, incorporating more than 11,000 individual entities in 31 countries.

At the state and national levels, New South Wales and New Zealand have Cap and Trade emissions reduction systems, created in 2003 and 2009, respectively. Additionally, China plans to establish a nation-wide Cap and Trade system in 2016 in response to social unrest over increasing pollution levels in Chinese cities.

In North America, a number of American states and Canadian provinces in the American Northeast participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an organization aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2020 from the 2009 levels. Pennsylvania, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec act as observers to the coalition, and while New Jersey was a founding member, Governor Chris Christie withdrew the state from the program in 2012. California also implemented an economy-wide Cap and Trade system in 2013 that seeks to reduce emissions by 16 percent between 2013 and 2020.

What are the advantages of a Carbon Trading program?

Advocates of Cap and Trade list a number of advantages this system has over rival emissions-reduction solutions, such as a flat carbon tax. Cap and Trade creates an assured and definite outcome, provides flexibility for the participating entities in their emission reduction methods, incentivizes technological innovation, and represents a global solution.

A flat carbon tax does not necessarily guarantee reduced emissions; it merely makes carbon more expensive in the hope of deterring polluters. Cap and Trade ensures a definite outcome through the cap on total emissions of the participating entities. As the cap is gradually lowered each year, the total emissions within that program decreases, regardless of the number of carbon permits any particular entity owns.

The gradual decrease in the emissions cap and the ability to purchase carbon credit creates the flexibility inherent in this system and the incentive for technological progress. Instead of making carbon significantly more expensive overnight, the cap is reduced in increments while the polluting parties learn to adjust to the new restrictions. It provides companies, factories, and countries time to research, develop, and implement a plan for carbon emissions reduction and provides them with more breathing room in terms of how they want to address their concerns. Some entities might want to implement long-term plans which may have large effects but the results will not be seen for a number of years, while others may want to experiment with new, emerging technology. If the plan does not work the first time around, they can purchase more carbon credits for that particular segment of the process and try something else. Entities that have more successful pollution reduction methods, however, will spend less time and less money, prompting industry and economy-wide investment in clean technology.

Lastly, Cap and Trade represents a global solution to a global problem. Because the trading aspect of the system requires a coalition of entities working in tandem and agreeing to common pollution reduction goals, the carbon market makes an international, far-reaching solution possible. The Kyoto Protocol and the European Trading System are examples of this kind of cooperative effort. A carbon tax, unless agreed upon in the United Nations (an unlikely event), can only feasibly be employed on a national level. However, pollution is a global problem, and a reduction in pollution in one country will not reduce the pollution in others.

What are the disadvantages of a Cap and Trade system?

Despite the goals it sets out to accomplish, there is significant opposition to Cap and Trade as a pollution reduction mechanism. Opponents often favor alternate solutions such as a flat carbon tax or increased public investment in emerging green technologies. Many groups find fault with Cap and Trade because they feel it will create problems with the price of carbon within the artificial carbon market, making it difficult to sustain and even more difficult to produce actual beneficial effects for the economy. James Hansen, in his New York Times Op-ed article “Cap and Fade”, argues that if all or even a large majority of participating bodies were to reduce their carbon emissions in a given year, the market would be over-saturated with carbon permits. The price of carbon would plummet and the artificial Cap and Trade market would collapse. At that point, the individual bodies will see little incentive in continued participation in the program, and Cap and Trade will have ultimately done little to reduce pollution.

Opponents also malign the various “offsets,” or alternatives to carbon reduction that are included within Cap and Trade programs. These offsets raise the overall cap for such measures as the avoidance of deforestation in Brazil or planting trees in a former industrialized area. Opponents point out that reduced pollution in one area should not allow increased pollution in another area. These offsets end up producing no net decrease in overall pollution, hindering the main purpose for which Cap and Trade systems are created.

Another issue critics have with Cap and Trade is that unless it is implemented on a global scale, with as many countries participating as possible, much of the world will continue polluting unabated. If Norway enters into a global program or creates a domestic cap and trade carbon market, that’s great, good for Norway. However, this does not compel another country, say India, to join as well. Climate change does not discriminate where its effects will be felt, and the climate over Norway will be affected the same as the climate over India, regardless of who is participating in a cap and trade program. Therefore, if not all major polluters join the cause, what incentive does that give to the countries or entities that are willing?

Critics also point to the problems experienced in the European Trading System’s carbon market in recent years as a sign that large-scale carbon trading is not a sustainable or effective solution. In early 2013 carbon prices within the European market fell considerably, so low that it threatened to destabilize the market altogether, and forced the European Union to delay credits distribution and take other measures to drag prices back up to a reasonable level. While many advocates argue that a carbon market would regulate itself, many look at the example of the ETS and remain skeptical.

Many are also afraid that Cap and Trade lends itself to corruption and big-business manipulation. Already in the carbon trading programs that currently exist, carbon brokers have materialized to service the buying and selling of carbon permits, in an attempt to get in on a piece of the Cap and Trade pie. Because Cap and Trade relies on the price of carbon and the machinations of a free market, opponents worry that a program will become another appendage of Wall St. without producing real environmental benefits.

Conclusion

Due to economic downturn in 2008 and the increased costs to consumers as a result of a carbon cap, the drive to implement a national carbon trading scheme in the United States has slowed considerably. However, Cap and Trade programs continue to appear in various shapes and sizes, and as the debate surrounding its effectiveness continues, we will wait and see how successful the current programs in effect prove to be.

Resources

Primary 

United Nations: Kyoto Protocol

European Commission: EU Emissions Trading System

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Model Rule

California Environmental Protection Agency: Cap and Trade Program

Additional 

Forbes: Four Reasons California Cap and Trade Had an Extraordinary First Year

Clean Technica: Five Good Things Cap and Trade Has Done for You

Environmental Leader: Why Cap and Trade is Good for Environmental Marketing

Environment 360: The Flawed Logic of the Cap and Trade Debate

The New York Times: Cap and Fade

Chron: Risks of Cap and Trade

Grist: Beyond Baby Steps: Analyzing the Cap and Trade Flop

Washington Post: The Folly of Unilateral Cap and Trade

Council on Foreign Relations: The Debate Over Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade

Environmental Defense Fund: How Cap and Trade Works

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: What Is Cap and Trade?

Ecosystem Market Place: Washington State to Pursue Cap and Trade Program

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cap and Trade: The Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently the United Nations made a series of declarations regarding the validity of climate change, its causes, and necessary measures to mitigate it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a very large “synthesis report,” a product of analyzing tens of thousands of scientific papers. The report covers all aspects, addressing atmosphere and emissions, oceans and sea level, air temperature, water cycle, and many other components of environmental systems. It goes over the changes to each over the last 150 years or so, and produces conclusions as to what induced those changes. Being that the report ultimately concludes that many of these concerns are products of human activity, it goes beyond being a summary of information and warnings, and provides many recommendations as to what needs to change and what measures ought to be taken to answer these warnings. These thoughts are more succinctly presented in the shorter summary for policymakers.

Among the conclusions therein, the most prevalent is probably the projections for changes in global temperature. If we continue on this course, by the end of the century the temperature could rise from 3.7-4.8 degrees Celsius from what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Since variation in global temperature of one or two degrees can result in radical and violent weather patterns, these numbers could presumably result in catastrophic changes to the climate and Earth. Deniers propose that these projections, and the evidence of rising temperatures in the past several centuries, might not necessarily be the result of human activity but rather an indication of general shifts in the Earth’s climatological patterns. For example, starting in the 1300s AD, many parts of the world–particularly in the Northern Hemisphere–experienced a Little Ice Age. Definite conclusions as to the causes of this phenomenon are still incomplete, but proposals range from general rises and falls within the Earth’s patterns to changes in solar or oceanic behavior.

During the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by about 1.5 degrees Celsius. The most notable consequence that resulted was major damage to agriculture and resulting famines. What kinds of consequences could there be for a temperature change of double that in the opposite direction as the IPCC proposes? The lesson that the Little Ice Age teaches us is that regardless of whether climate change is a result of human activity or not, it is clearly real and has dire consequences for human civilization if we are not prepared for it.

Supposing that it is in part due to human activity, the discussion on rising temperatures inevitably leads back to emissions and energy. The point of no return is a 2 degree Celsius increase, according to the report. After this point, damage to the climate and Earth could be irreversible. Governments and industries ought to set emissions standards so as to keep the rise in temperature from passing this marker; however, in order to do so we have less than forty years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent, and even further by the end of the century. These are very imposing numbers, and many fear that the existing financial structures cannot accommodate these objectives and the necessary changes to be made. On the other hand some feel that we should be more motivated to pursue these goals, not just because of the impending disasters but because energy-efficient systems are financially advisable.

There are many arguments that the economic infrastructure for renewable energy is already in place, and pursuing those courses is not only environmentally friendly but financially advisable because it would pay for itself in a short amount of time. This report should provide the impetus for making a more wholehearted attempt at transitioning to a substantial degree to these other options.

Carbon emissions go hand in hand with rising temperatures. Courtesy of Kim Seng via Flickr.

It is generally accepted that the Dust Bowl was largely a result of environmentally unfriendly agricultural practices. Did we require over half a century to reach this consensus? This framework can be applied elsewhere, as we consider unnatural elements of “natural disasters.” Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy have often been named in this debate. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 claimed 70,000 lives. As the report suggests, time to act is running out. These concerns are not ones to be dealt with solely by governments and world leaders; the threats of climate change pervade the globe and affect all people. We can all improve the decisions we make and the ways we live our lives, and advocate more vocally for positive change.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UN Validates Climate Change in New Report, Now It’s Up to Us appeared first on Law Street.