In January, seven members of Greenpeace scaled a 270-foot crane at a construction site near the White House and unfurled a massive banner with the word “resist” printed in block letters. In April, Greenpeace members blocked the entrance to Coca-Cola’s UK headquarters with a 2.5 ton sculpture of a seagull regurgitating plastic and unfurled a banner reading “Stop Dirty Pipeline Deals!” on the center stage of Credit Suisse’s annual shareholder meeting. All of these Greenpeace interventions grabbed headlines but they did not shut down operations of the White House, Coca-Cola, or Credit Suisse. Greenpeace’s banners certainly entertain and uplift, but do they actually have an impact?

While Greenpeace would be nothing without its partnerships with local NGOs, it does have more brand recognition and funding than local organizations. Greenpeace campaigners unrolling banners and installing sculptures gain more publicity than a handful of protesters picketing outside of Coca-Cola headquarters. Images of a Greenpeace demonstration go viral within hours and that kind of power grants the group access to negotiations that smaller organizations never get. Greenpeace negotiators have worked with dozens of major corporations, including Nestlé, Mattel, LEGO, and McDonald’s, to address how the companies can reduce their carbon footprint, protect the environment, and divest from harmful supply chains.

Under the Trump Administration, when sustainability and climate change are treated like myths, businesses will feel no pressure to commit to green practices–unless they are publicly called out and the public is educated about their operations. The Science March and the People’s Climate March were powerful but brief–the true work will be sustaining the outrage and activism that those marches created over a four year period. Greenpeace has the network, the funding and the name recognition to turn individual protests into a larger, more cohesive movement.

Activists can continue to do their work challenging corporations but should also look to the local level as 2018 approaches. If they choose to expand the “market based campaigning” strategy they’ve used against corporations in the past to local and federal governments, they could build powerful local power bases. Imagine Greenpeace banners in town meetings or on the campaign trail during the mid-term elections–the setting for a Greenpeace campaign doesn’t always have to be a corporate meeting and negotiations should not be reserved for corporate sustainability departments.

When Greenpeace was founded in 1971, its first activists leased a fishing boat called the Phyllis Cormack and set sail for Alaska, protesting nuclear testing off of the coast by putting themselves in harm’s way. This ship was stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard and turned back–but several members of the Coast Guard crew signed a letter supporting the protesters’ mission and the media attention the boat drew contributed to ending nuclear testing in Alaska. So, while that first fishing boat could easily have been written off as just another publicity stunt, look what it launched.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Beyond Symbolic: Greenpeace in the Trump Era appeared first on Law Street.

Tesla, the company responsible for making super-cool, totally electric, ultra-luxurious, better-than-any-car-ever sports cars, just held a press conference that might be this generation’s iPod announcement. That sounds kind of bombastic, but there’s reason to believe that the car Tesla is making could mark the beginning of a seismic shift in transportation and energy.

Just yesterday, Tesla Motors revealed the Model 3, the product that many suspect the company has been aiming to release since its inception. During the announcement, CEO Elon Musk commemorated the success of Tesla’s earlier cars, the Model S and the Model X, but recognized that they’re far from affordable. The presentation’s exact phrasing for the two cars was “high price” and “less high price.” Now, they’re ready for the mainstream, with the five-seater Model 3, beginning at $35,000. With a series of claims that seem almost too good to be true, including ample space, a 215-mile range on a single charge, and Tesla’s autopilot features baked into the car, the Model 3 is poised to break Tesla out of the exclusive world of luxury vehicles.

That $35,000 price tag is a real sweet-spot for the non-premium market, as the average price of a new car last year was $33,560. Plus, an electric car like the Model 3 is in an enviable position: it’s eligible for federal and state-level tax incentives and rebates, which can reduce the effective price of the car substantially. These incentives are part of a larger government program designed to improve the fuel economy of cars in America. You’ll still need to pony up the initial $35,000, but you’ll be able to reduce your income tax by $7,500 for that year. Individual states have their own incentives as well, with states like Lousiana offering incentives of up to $9,000 depending on battery size. This means that depending on where you live, your totally-electric Model 3 could be less than $25,000. Thankfully, Tesla’s website has a cheat sheet where you can see if your state offers an extra bonus.

There’s one catch–these tax credits are only available until the company sells 200,000 cars. The idea is that once an environmentally friendly car brand has established itself, it will be able to handle costs better on its own. Tesla claims to be able to make 50,000 cars a year with its current robot-army factories, so that number might be reached in the time it takes you to get tired of your current vehicle. Tesla claims people have pre-ordered an estimated $7.5 billion worth of vehicles, with pre-order numbers around 198,000.

Aside from the tax advantages, there are several other pluses to owning an electric car that help keep expenses down. For one, you’ll no longer have to pay $30 to $50 at every fill-up. Tesla-provided “superchargers” will fill your car’s battery to 80 percent capacity in only 30 minutes, with no charge. Plus, you can charge your car at home for your typical electricity rate, which is about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour on average and some third party chargers have rates around $0.30 per kWh. Tesla hasn’t announced how large the battery in the Model 3 will be, but numbers around 40 or 50 kWh have been speculated. That would make a fill-up cost around $15 at the more expensive charging stations, and only about $5 in your home.

While the currently low gas prices across the country right don’t make electric cars seem like a necessity, we don’t know how long these prices will last. While it sounds like a QVC sales pitch—we really don’t know for how long these deals will last. Of course, make sure to take this announcement with a grain of salt, because although Tesla has a pretty good track record of producing amazing vehicles, a promise of this magnitude may prove difficult to follow through on.

Read More: The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government Wants You to Buy the New Tesla Right Now appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone tuning into the first Democratic debate heard hopeful Bernie Sanders’ shout out to Denmark–and Hillary Clinton’s subsequent dismissal of applying standards that work in Denmark to the United States. It’s become common practice for politicians from around the world to constantly applaud Northern Europe as a set of model countries: their healthcare, their political participation, their education, and their commitment to environmental protection. On the environmental front, Northern Europe is a heavyweight that puts its money behind implementing policy that results in substantive change. Denmark, for example, has funneled time and funding into wind energy nationwide and seeks to use 100 percent renewable energies by 2035. No one is claiming that Northern Europe deserves anything less than respect for its efforts–but let’s step away from the Prom Queen of Electric Energy for a moment and talk about the wallflower making moves without attention from the global media. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s turn to Uruguay.

Uruguay is a powerhouse of hydroelectric and wind energy in Latin America, hosting dozens of projects that are pushing alternative energy to the forefront of the country’s economy. In the past fifty years, the country has transformed from an unstable agrarian community plagued by insurgency and economic instability into a thriving, stable leader in the Western hemisphere. Yet because Uruguay is located in “the Global South,” the international community rarely takes the time to applaud its commitment to green energy. Let’s take a minute to catch up on what you’ve been missing in Uruguay:

Uruguay’s Accomplishments

Uruguay, with a population of approximately 3.3 million people, is the second-smallest country on the continent. Good things come in small packages: the State Department ranks Uruguay first in Latin America for democracy, quality of living, peace, press freedom and a host of other attributes. Uruguay is a beacon for political liberty, a financial powerhouse and a force for peace both in the region and abroad (it is one of the highest contributors to UN peacekeeping forces). Plus, Uruguay has legalized marijuana, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Healthcare is both high quality and affordable, as is higher education, and Uruguay considered the safest country in Latin America. The icing on the cake is that Uruguay’s former President José Mujica, who just stepped down in March, was known as the “world’s humblest president” because he lived an extremely modest lifestyle and donated the majority of his salary to charity. Although it’s obviously not perfect, Uruguay has a lot to be proud of: particularly its commitment to alternative energy.

Uruguay and Alternative Energy 

Denmark better watch its back–Uruguay is aiming to get as much as 38 percent of its national power from wind energy by 2017 and that goal appears easily within reach. In comparison, Denmark started shifting to alternative energy in the 1970s and currently gets about 30 percent of its electricity from wind power. Uruguay is aiming to hit the same energy goal in half the time–ambitious, yet seemingly plausible if wind turbine development continues at aggressive rates. Uruguay exists outside of the ongoing tug-of-war between electric energy and fossil fuels that rages in most of South America–as a nation with no significant coal, oil or gas deposits, alternative energy was a necessity. Historically, Uruguay was dependent on Argentina and Brazil for energy imports but the shift to alternative energy is granting Uruguay a path of economic self-reliance at an astounding rate. In fact, Argentina and Brazil may start importing energy from Uruguay soon.

Starting in 2005, Uruguay invested over 3 percent of its GDP each year in overhauling the energy system. This has transformed the nation into a major center for wind turbines and hydroelectric energy. Uruguay’s flat landscape makes it ideal for wind energy, which proved especially important when major droughts disrupted hydroelectricity productivity in 2014. Billions of dollars have flooded into Uruguay in recent years as UTE (the state-owned electric company) grants projects to international bidders looking to create large-scale wind farms. Uruguay has the highest clean energy growth on the continent and it has created this growth without excluding native workers. Uruguay requires that the control centers of these projects are built in Uruguay and that after the first year of operation, 80 percent of maintenance jobs go to local employees. Expanding the job market for local workers is giving the country traction on its path to energy independence. Beyond wind energy, Uruguay has two unique projects in the works: making Carrasco International Airport the world’s first sustainable airport and using electric energy to power all public transport by 2030.

Oil on the Horizon

The 2005-2030 energy plan that Uruguay has been committed to has performed incredibly so far, but national governments have to plan for worst-case scenarios. Uruguay’s worst-case scenario would be abandoning green energy for fossil fuels.  Uruguay, despite its lack of on-shore resources, has been scouted for off-shore drilling to the tune of over $1.6 billion in 3 years. The current administration wants to reach a consensus before committing to oil ventures but with companies such as BP, BG Group, and Tullow Oil knocking on Uruguay’s door, the pressure is rising. Alternative energy is working for Uruguay, but the lure of oil investment is no doubt tempting for the small nation. The transition to oil would lead to a huge shift in the political culture of the country, as new lobbies and political partnerships would open the door for corruption and conflict. Uruguay has made almost unparalleled strides in energy development, yet all those efforts may crumble if the country turns to oil development.

So, Why is No One Cheering for Uruguay?

Why is Uruguay flying under the radar while Northern Europe is lauded on the world stage for its work on alternative energy? One could argue it is because of the size of Uruguay–who is keeping track of a country that small? Well, Latvia and Estonia are both smaller than Uruguay but a quick Google search will turn up a dozen listicles praising these nations’ commitment to green energy. Uruguay may have a small population but that doesn’t mean we dismiss it out of hand. Uruguay has done nothing to anger the international community, on the contrary, it has upheld essentially every possible standard of good governance. So why isn’t everyone planning to retire to Montevideo?

Instead, many suspect that it all comes back to the global North-South divide. The North (Europe, North America, Australia–“the first world”) and the South (Central and Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East–“the third world”) developed in different ways but although economic prosperity has been redistributed over recent decades, the North is still considered the ultimate authority on economic matters. We shed attention on successful European countries that already hold our attention because historically the “global South” has been years behind us in development. We like to think of Latin America in terms of coconuts and jungles rather than a diverse continent with a set of booming economies that rival our own. We are used to Northern European countries succeeding at everything they try their hand at, so watching them succeed at alternative energy implementation is par for the course. However, Uruguay’s success is all the more impressive because it didn’t come from the more stable economy of Northern Europe. Uruguay rebuilt itself after the turbulence of the 1970s–the Tupumaros Marxist guerilla movement, of which Mujica was a part, led a nation-wide insurgency for over a decade–and transformed into not only a regional leader, but to perhaps the most impressive wind development center of the hemisphere. Uruguay is overturning the stereotype of a Latin-American nation plagued by corruption and violence that lags behind the rest of the world. Hopefully, the continuing growth of wind energy in Uruguay will grant it a larger spotlight but until then, the pressure from oil investment places the fate of Uruguay’s energy plan in a vulnerable position. In order to continue creating incredible energy changes, Uruguay must receive more international attention–the media must promote the nation as an ideal location for investment. In the meantime, politicians are going to keep writing love letters to Denmark while Uruguay creeps towards being the most environmentally friendly nation in the world.

Ignoring Uruguay’s achievements is not only insulting to the country, it increases the probability that Uruguay will turn to oil dependency. A concerted effort to recognize Uruguay’s energy achievements will give the nation the public support that it needs, and deserves, to meet its energy goals.

Conclusion

Uruguay is a much-overlooked dark horse when it comes to energy independence. The country’s move toward clean energy threatens to pass its European counterparts, but it doesn’t get nearly as much recognition as European nations. While that may, in part, be because of endemic biases in the United States and Europe, it’s important to recognize the innovative technology being used in the Latin American green-energy haven.

Resources

Primary

Embassy of the United States-Montevideo, Uruguay: Uruguay Rankings

Additional

CountryStats: Uruguay-Introduction

IRENA: Renewable Energy Policy Brief Uruguay

Jean-Pierre Lehmann: Bridging the 21st Century’s North-South Divide

Katell Abiven: Latin America Divided between Oil and Green Energy

Ken Parks: Uruguay Spends $2.6 Billion to Become South America Wind Leader

MercoPress: Uruguay Among the World’s Top Ten Greenest Countries

Pulsamerica: Uruguay:A Record Breaking Wind Power Revolution

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Uruguay’s Green Energy Policy: The World’s Best Kept Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

On December 18, 2013, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled a discussion draft for an energy tax reform plan intended to make progress in the federal government’s current system of corporate tax incentives for the production of clean energy. The old system was criticized as being too complicated and too decentralized. Read on to learn about Baucus’ energy plan, the arguments in favor of it, and the arguments against it.

What was Baucus’ plan?

There are forty separate tax incentives offered to corporations for a variety of forms of energy including fossil fuels, wind, solar, and nuclear power; however, many of these are short-term incentives set to expire every two years or so until they are re-authorized by Congress, often leaving companies unsure of which tax incentives would still be in effect in the future. These incentives are also often specific in a way that does not provide for new and emerging technologies that may contribute to reducing emissions.

Senator Baucus’ plan aims to make energy tax incentives “more predictable, rational, and tech-neutral” by consolidating some of these incentives and eliminating others to form two broader and simpler tax incentives, one focused on clean production of electricity and one focused on clean production of transportation fuel. These incentives are granted after a particular plant is using a method that produces emissions intensity 25 percent cleaner than average energy production methods (“emissions intensity” is measured as the amount of emissions released per amount of energy produced, and is used to compare the environmental effect of different methods of energy production).

Baucus’ plan also calls for using the federal money saved through this tax reform to lower the corporate tax rate, which currently stands at 35 percent. Baucus, however, was confirmed in January as the next US Ambassador to China, and though leadership of the Senate Finance Commission will transfer to Senator Ron Wyden, who has worked closely with Baucus on this reform plan, many expect the plan to become stalled as its leader moves overseas. Despite this uncertain future, Baucus’ reform plan is seen as an indicator of impending reform to the current energy tax system in the United States.

What is the argument for Baucus’ plan?

Supporters of the reform say Baucus’ plan is an effective way to simplify the tax incentive structure while supporting clean energy. Companies would not have to waiting on their toes to see whether the particular incentives that apply to them would be renewed, and knowing that these incentives will have more longevity would promote more investment into clean energy production technology projects in the future. Most importantly, this reform plan is tech-neutral, meaning that it does not favor certain technologies over others and in fact does not specify any technologies in its incentives.

Supporters argue that this aspect of the plan will benefit newer and cleaner technologies that may not necessarily fit into the rigid outlines of our current tax incentives, thus paving the way for further innovation and investment into energy-producing technology. Additionally, many of the incentives that are to be eliminated and not included in the broader transportation fuel incentive are tax breaks that benefit Big Oil, a move hailed by many supporters who do not see the point of offering tax breaks to companies in an industry that has shown record profits year after year [cite]. Lastly, with the federal revenue gained from simplifying the tax incentive structure and removing breaks for big oil companies, Senator Baucus’ plan intends to lower corporate tax rates, which supporters hope will provide impetus for further economic growth.

What is the argument against Baucus’ plan?

Others are strongly opposed to this reform plan due to its emphasis only on energy producers (companies that use coal, fossil fuels, wind, solar and other methods to produce energy) and not energy users (all other private citizens and companies that use electricity, gasoline, etc.), and because the emissions reduction quotas of the incentives are, as one critic put it, “unambitious”, and would have little effect on improving the environment.

The two main tax incentives of Baucus’ plan target producers of electricity and transportation fuel, with no mention of companies that use energy in a cleaner way. This means that companies that make their buildings more energy efficient, companies that manufacture environmentally-friendly appliances and cars, and the individuals who use these greener manufactured goods would no longer receive the tax incentives they currently receive. Many opponents see this as being counter-productive in the struggle to promote cleaner energy technologies.

And while this plan does target energy production, many opponents point out that this plan would actually reduce incentives provided to areas such as solar and wind power. Whereas currently producers of solar power receive an investment tax credit of 30 percent, under this new plan they would only be entitled to either a production tax credit of $0.023 per kilowatt or an investment tax credit of 20 percent. Therefore, despite favoring carbon-free methods of energy production, many opponents feel this plan will do little to help area such as solar, wind, and other green energy production.

There has also been a backlash from the oil and natural gas industry, as well as from areas such as Montana and North Dakota who have a fledgling oil industry, arguing that by favoring carbon-free technologies the plan would be stifling job opportunities and economic growth brought about by the oil industry. Lastly, some opponents of the plan argue that the reduction quotas are too low. One critic points out that a 25% reduction in emissions “intensity”, which is the wording used in the discussion draft, is vastly different from a concrete measurement of emissions, and depending upon economic growth and the relative amount of energy these companies are producing, companies could meet this quota without any serious reduction in emissions. On a broader scale, some oppose tax incentives for alternative energy production altogether, arguing that global warming is, as indicated by its name, a global phenomenon, and that any reduction in emissions in the US is offset by emissions due to economic growth in developing countries, where environmental legislation is often more lax.

Conclusion

It’s clear that something needs to be done to fix the very confusing and red-tape-littered energy tax process. While there are certainly tangible benefits to Baucus’ plan, opponents worry that it would do more harm than good.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance: Baucus Unveils Proposal For Energy Tax Reform

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance: Energy Tax Reform Discussion Draft

Additional

American Progress: Baucus Tax Reform Cuts $46 Billion in Oil Breaks

Domestic Fuel: Senator Max Baucus Unveils Energy Tax Reform

EE News: Baucus Proposal Replaces Dozens of Energy Breaks with Credits for ‘Clean’ Fuel, Electricity

BioMass Magazine: Sen. Baucus Releases Proposal To Overhaul Energy Tax Incentives

BillingsGazette: Baucus’ Tax Reform Must Be Fair To Energy Industry

ThinkProgress: Max Baucus’ Renewable Energy Tax Break Reform: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Daily Caller: Analysis: Baucus Energy Tax Plan Comes With Dubious Benefits

Breaking Energy: Are Subsidies the Answer to Energy Sector Tax Reform?

Solar Industry: Baucus Energy Tax Reform Plan Reduces Solar Investment Credit

Washington Post: The Way Congress Funds Clean Energy Is A Mess. Max Baucus Thinks There’s A Better Idea

Politico: Baucus Proposes To Overhaul for Clean-Energy Tax Breaks

Lexology: US Teax Reform Update: Senate Finance Chairman Baucus Issues Energy Tax Reform Proposal

Hill: Baucus Proposes Dumping Energy Breaks

Tax Reform Law: Baucus Proposes Major Overhaul To Energy Incentives

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 Max Baucus’ Tax Plan: Could it Work? appeared first on Law Street.