Search

The latest draft of the Paris Agreement is out today, Dec. 10, seven hours late, but with, finally, some real changes in the text -- most notably including the goal of 1.5 degrees that many in the Climate Vulnerable Forum were fighting for.

As we wrote about earlier this COP, climate finance is one of the most contentious issues, and thus far, the agreement includes several provisions previously agreed to, and a few positive changes. It's not enough, but hopefully it means more will come.

Here are some highlights

The $100 billion floor: The amount decided for the Green Climate Fund is specifically designated as a floor, not a ceiling. This is very important because nearly all analysts say that this number must be scaled much, much higher if we are to reach 2050 goals for both mitigation and adaptation.

Adaptation finance: The agreement makes it clear that adaptation finance has to be balanced with mitigation finance, which is key because, thus far, adaptation (adjusting to existing climate change impacts) – which is crucial to vulnerable countries -- only made up 16 percent of existing climate finance.

Loss and damage is in!: A key point of concern for many countries was made much clearer, having its own section. It mentions insurance, a potential relocation mechanism, and early warning systems. The exact mechanism for determining loss and damage is still uncertain, but the two options in the draft text include some form of a mechanism, which is a good step.

What's not so good ...

Vague language on the Green Carbon Fund: There is not much clarity about where funding sources will come from, and how the GCF will be scaled up after 2020. Moreover, there are still lots of brackets (i.e., text that is still open for debate as talks continue) on the nature of the money that will be raised. In addition, funding for loss and damage is still vague, with no mention of how funds will be raised or dispersed.

Liability: The loss and damage section includes language that explicitly disallows liability or compensation. Developing countries were not pushing for this being included, but the inclusion of this language is probably a victory for the U.S. (which was concerned about legal liability) and could have long-term implications for the strength of loss and damage.

Forests: Another issue is that REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) -- the primary mechanism for reducing emissions from forests – is only suggested, not an official mechanism. Remember the news about Indonesia's enormous fires, quite possibly the largest in human history, in one of the world's most biodiverse, tropical forest countries, emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases? If we are to meet pre-2020 emissions reduction goals, cutting emissions from agricultural sources such as deforestation is crucial. The fact that this is not more clearly stated may mean that we'll see more fires in the months, and years, to come.

What's next?

There are still a few "brackets" – undecided or unclear text – in the agreement, and few options (choices yet to be made by negotiators) that have to be ironed out. We've got one more day until COP21 is supposed to close, and rumors are flying that the talks may be extended. Getting to this point has been an incredible journey, and we are now one step closer to what we really want – a real, strong, binding climate agreement.

Need to catch up on the action? Read it all here.

Image credit: Le centre d'information d'eau France

It's a flurry of activity here at COP21. As the scheduled talks near their completion, parties, activists and press are packing into the Le Bourget conference center to lobby for their key issues to make it into the final draft of the declaration.

The Wi-Fi in the press center has slowed to a standstill, but I've found a small lounge chair between Angola's office and the bathroom that has remarkably strong connectivity. And it's from here that I'm moved to share a key financing issue which hasn't gotten nearly enough play in the press coverage of these talks: fossil fuel subsidies!

Much virtual ink has been spilled on the costs of adaptation and the limited ability of the least developed nations to manage the impacts. The U.S. has been lauded for doubling its $400 million contribution to the Green Climate Fund, but out of its dirtier, more malevolent pocket, it funded the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $13 billion in 2015. While $400 million can buy a lot of climate mitigation and recovery, it's not going to go very far if the government is spending 32 times that amount to further the very industry that is causing the problem in the first place.

It's not just in the U.S. that fossil fuel subsidies are much higher than they should be. In fact, a staggering $436 billion in subsidies is now being spent to prop up an old dirty industry that is smack dab in the middle of destroying the livelihoods of millions of individuals around the world.

Sometimes these numbers are so big they lose their meaning. The infographic below describes what $436 billion looks like in real world terms:

Image credit: Pixabay

Delegates, ministers and observers worked late into the night last night -- deliberating over the latest "clean" text released by the COP presidency on Wednesday afternoon. Slimmed down from 43 pages to only 29, the text now leaves far fewer options for ministers to choose from by the Friday deadline.

Many parties have suggested that Wednesday's text "wasn't perfect" but was a "good start," which raises the question of not if a deal will be reached, but how the key issues still in play will resolve in the coming hours.

If you've been following along, you've heard it all before -- loss and damage, differentiation, climate finance, ratcheting up ambition. But as U.N. General-Secretary Ban Ki-Moon said at a press conference on Monday, "Perfection is our enemy." Any deal, especially one of this magnitude and urgency, requires compromise -- seizing what Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid calls "the political moment before us" to put "shortsighted interests" aside in favor a truly ambitious deal.

We've heard that before, too. The rhetoric of ambition over the past two weeks must now be translated into firm commitments and set down in text.

"Rome was not built in a day," Adow said at a press conference on Thursday morning, "but the architecture must be in place before it can be built at all." Undoubtedly few expect a "perfect" outcome in Paris, but Adow outlined three key points that reflect what many here on the ground feel are, as he put it, "not tradable."

1. Loss and damage: Without it, the most vulnerable countries will increasingly suffer the worst impacts of a changing climate for which they are largely not responsible.


2. Finance: Without it, developing countries will lack the means to engage in the new energy revolution already in progress.


3. Ambition: This refers to codifying in text how countries will increase their ambition by no later than 2018, with a solid framework of transparency incorporating reporting and review by all countries. Otherwise, the world is locked into a 3-degrees Celsius path until 2025. The whole world looses.

"We will get a deal," Adow said, the question is "whether it will be a weak deal or a strong deal."

"The key pillars of the Paris Outcome are in place," added Alex Hanafi of the Environmental Defense Fund. Both Adow and Hanafi emphasized the stark difference between COP15 in Copenhagen and the ongoing Paris talks. By the middle of the second week in 2009, negotiations had essentially fallen apart. There are still serious differences and issues echoing in the plenary halls, but "never before have we been so close" to a global climate agreement.

We sit in a historic political moment and await the outcome.

Image courtesy of Le Centre d'information, courtesy flickr

This post first published in GlobalWarmingisReal

By Teresa Fogelberg, Global Reporting Initiative

Geneva and Paris are two grand cities that are closely connected. My last visit to Geneva was a few weeks ago for the 4^th Annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, where business and government leaders met to discuss how the private sector can promote and protect human rights. Right now, I’m in Paris for COP 21, where some of those same leaders are here to agree upon their contributions to the global 1.5 to 2 degree retention effort. Geneva and Paris are close by, not only geographically, but also in linked causes.

Already in 2011 leaders like Mary Robinson and the UN Commission on Human Rights introduced the concept of climate justice and reminded us that climate change is about suffering – about the human misery that results directly from the damage we are doing to nature. They reminded us of the UN Climate Change convention text that speaks about “the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”  In the same year the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted two resolutions which state that global warming “poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights.”

I am hopeful that this week will see a binding agreement emerge from the discussions here in Paris. Even so, we should all recognize that the real work begins after this, as the world’s leaders decide what actions are necessary to follow through on their commitments. For the private sector this means first understanding, managing and communicating the contribution to climate change, working to mitigate and adapt to those impacts and doing so in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of people.

Why the climate change discussion must go beyond emissions
Climate change has real and measurable human impacts and equitable solutions to this challenge will require businesses and governments to appeal to their sense of responsibility, accountability and justice. The difficulty lies in finding a fit between climate change and human rights policy. Measuring mitigation and adaptation by the private sector is done through hard-nosed, easily quantifiable methodologies such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, developed by the World Resources Institute. These methodologies are highly valuable but measuring social and human rights impacts typically involves other approaches, developed by social scientists, economists and anthropologists, which are not often incorporated.

This is unfortunate because when businesses view climate change through a human rights lens, they create a better understanding of how operations effect the lives of people. The good news is that sustainability reporting can help. Thousands of businesses in more than 90 countries turn to GRI to understand their climate-related risks, their human rights risks and the other sustainability challenges that affect them. GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards bring climate change and human rights together into one methodology that organizations can use to measure, manage and communicate their sustainability risks and opportunities. A few weeks ago in Geneva, I had the honor of officially releasing our latest linkage document, which lays out the very strong connections between the GRI G4 Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This is one example of how organizations can use the breadth of sustainability issues covered in G4 to identify and then address specific areas of risk in more detail and potentially uncover new opportunities to contribute to sustainable development.

I am here in Paris this week because GRI is leading a discussion about the important role that non-state actors, like businesses must play in solving the climate challenge. GRI is holding two events at COP 21: Climate risk, data and decision making for business and governments (a closed event), and Spotlight on Climate Change, Human Rights and Sustainable development – role of Business. I also spoke at the Closing Plenary of the 6th Annual Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF15), hosted by UNEP and Climate Action.

There is real momentum here at COP 21 but we must stay focused on the impact that needs to be delivered as a result of any agreement. The agreement will probably contain strong language on monitoring, measuring and reviewing. This is where I see huge potential for a collaboration between State and non-State actors to pave the way for transformational change.

Teresa Fogelberg is GRI’s Deputy Chief Executive and heads the Government Relations, International Organizations, Development and Advocacy Team, which works to enable smart policy on sustainability around the world.

By Kai Goerlich and Will Ritzrau

As leaders gather in Paris for the UN Conference on Climate Change, game-changing initiatives are on the table. The stakes are high: the aim is to reach, for the first time, a universal, legally-binding agreement that will enable us to combat climate change effectively and boost the transition toward resilient, low-carbon societies and economies. The hope is that COP21 will be a turning point.

To create a true shift, there’s a need for concrete actions which can drive results. Digital business and technologies can make a big impact. We estimate that IT could help cut greenhouse gases by 7.6 Gt and save a value of around $30 trillion in resources, including water, energy and metals by 2030.

Resources – We won’t get more, so let’s be more efficient

According to the World Trade Organization, worldwide trade volume tripled between 2000 and 2015 and will continue to grow as high as $70 trillion by 2030. To take full advantage of this market opportunity, logistics service providers need to increase their capacity for transporting by ship, railway, roadway, and air by 50 percent. Meanwhile, financial transactions will have to double and reach a volume of nine trillion transactions.

Further fueled by a global middle class that is expected to grow three-fold by 2030, this demand will likely outgrow natural and economic capacity. Estimates from a variety of nongovernmental organizations and analysts predict the need for 50 percent more water, 50 percent more energy, 50 percent more food, and 100 percent more metals by 2030. Not only will this demand lead to over-exploitation of the world’s natural resources, but it will also result in high and volatile commodity pricing.

We estimate that the resources needed over the next 15 years will sum up to around $33 trillion. By applying digital technologies globally, and reducing operating costs, we could essentially save the resources that we need to cope with the growing demand. The benefits of digitization extend beyond cost savings… they can also lower carbon emissions enough to avoid most catastrophic warming scenarios.

Carbon Emissions – We can’t afford the impact, so let’s reduce

According to #SMARTer2030, a study by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) and Accenture Strategy, it is possible, during the next 15 years, to hold worldwide carbon emissions to 2015 levels by digitizing business processes and applying data to decisions about resource use. In new research published in Digitalist Magazine, Executive Quarterly, SAP estimates that in six major industries like utilities, agriculture and food production and transportation and logistics, digital technologies can help save 7.6 Gt carbon emissions by 2030. That’s a full 63 percent of the 12.1 Gt total identified in the #SMARTer2030 study that could be cut.

This leads us to ask: Where would technology create the highest impact?  Would certain industries generate greater efficiency gains and lower emissions?  How realistic is it for a business to become more sustainable and more profitable at the same time?

Let’s consider an example from agriculture and food production. Farmers are now using digital technologies and analytics which enable them to reduce the amount of chemicals they use to fertilize and protect crops, and to optimize their use of heavy machinery. By tapping into big data for crop impacts – such as weather or soil composition – farmers can make better decisions about how much water they need for irrigation; reduce the amount of herbicides and pesticides used; and limit the gas-guzzling equipment needed. As a result, they can optimize their yields (harvests), while also cutting carbon emissions. This use of technology to make better decisions also has a positive impact on the farmer’s profit, through optimized investment in fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides.

To become more sustainable, organizations have used IT – specifically analytics and automation – to drive cost and resource efficiencies. These efficiency gains are often used as a way to reinvent products and business models. As we’ve noted, natural resources are now a global competitive factor – they cannot be ignored. However, the natural resource inefficiencies will remain largely hidden if digital technologies are only used to identify financial outcomes without a link to the natural resource footprint.

By rolling out digital business technologies across the economy, six major industries alone could help cut harmful greenhouse gases significantly, and save a value of around $30 trillion in natural resources, by 2030. And, as the digital farming example shows, it is possible to be(come) more sustainable and profitable. Just imagine how much greater an impact there could be to addressing the climate crisis if every industry could realize these gains.

Kai Goerlich is Director of IoT, Supplier Networks and Digital Futures at SAP SE. Will Ritzrau is Director for Sustainability at SAP SE.  This post is based on their joint research, Charted: Is Digital Business the Answer to the Climate Crisis? in the  Q4 2015 issue of Digitalist Magazine, Executive Quarterly, available for free download on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

[Image credit: motiqua, Flickr]

While the COP21 Paris climate talks have been lumbering through the expected obstacles set up by national political leaders, elsewhere things have been hopping with action. Earlier this week, a global coalition of 44 state and regional officials pressed for strong action, as did a group of more than 200 U.S. mayors and other local officials.

In the latest development, 114 companies, including household names such as Dell, Sony, Ikea Group, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Walmart, General Mills and Kellogg, have gone above and beyond the COP21 climate goals to join the Science Based Targets initiative.

COP21 is missing the target

COP21 seems on track to avoid the disastrous conclusion of the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, but according to some observers, even if COP21 ends on a strong note, the voluntary carbon commitments made by national governments will not be enough to avert catastrophic climate change.

Soft drinks and breakfast cereals to the rescue

Like the name says, the Science Based Targets initiative is designed to promote effective targets based on climate science, not on political will. It is a partnership between an A-list of global organizations that includes CDP, the World Resources Institute, WWF and the U.N. Global Compact.

The first group of 10 is an interesting mix because it demonstrates the impact that everyday products -- such as soft drinks and breakfast cereals -- have on global carbon emissions. That's clearly illustrated by the above infographic from Coca-Cola, which illustrates the reach of the company's bio-based PlantBottle initiative.

The standards are strict, and companies have to work hard to meet the targets. Triple Pundit readers will probably recognize most of the first 10 companies to have their targets approved: Coca-Cola, Dell, Enel, General Mills, Kellogg, NRG Energy, Procter & Gamble, Sony and Thalys.

If Thalys doesn't ring a bell, that's the European rail service. Enel Green is a global company based in Italy, and NRG is a U.S. energy company that has been transitioning from conventional power generation to community solar and other alternatives.

Strong targets, strong action

With just 10 of the 114 pledgees under approval, the Science Based Targets initiative will score an impressive result. The 10 companies combined are expected to reduce emissions from their direct operations by 799 million tons of carbon dioxide, which works out to avoiding the combustion of 1.86 billion barrels of oil.

Once all of the 114 companies are on board, the impact on global emissions is expected to be significant. Their combined profits in 2014 added up to more than $932 billion, which is more than the gross domestic product of Indonesia.

In addition, the companies have also pledged to tighten up their supply chains to reduce emissions. Coca-Cola's PlantBottle initiative, for example, is a benchmark-setting example of supply chain innovation, and it is touching off collaborations with other companies including Heinz and Ford.

Here's the rundown on Kellogg's commitment by chairman and CEO John Bryant:

" ... Kellogg is setting a new target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We plan to cut GHG emissions by 65 percent across our operations, known as Scope 1 and 2, and, for the first time work with suppliers, known as Scope 3, to help reduce their emissions by 50 percent by 2050.

"We recognize the interconnected and inter-reliant nature of our business with suppliers, farmers, customers, consumers and governments. These types of commitments require cooperation across the full supply chain. That is the only way we can truly be successful."

The initiative also spotlights the efforts of companies that produce carbon-dependent products. Automobiles are one of two obvious examples, the other being electronic goods. In that field, the U.S. company Dell has taken on a leadership role. As part of its Science Based Targets pledge, Dell committed to reduce the energy intensity of its products by 80 percent by 2020. That's in addition to a 2020 goal of reducing its facility and operational emissions by 50 percent compared to 2011.

Honda is among the 104 pledgees that are still working on their plans, and as a vehicle manufacturer it certainly has a tough row to hoe. However, in 2012 Honda became the first auto manufacturer to catalog and disclose its greenhouse gas emissions, which gives it a running start on a leadership position.

With a variety of forward-looking initiatives such as vehicle-to-grid technology and fuel cell electric vehicles under its belt, Honda also has a head start on setting and meeting ambitious targets.

Two other auto companies, Nissan and Renault, are also among the 104 pledgees waiting on approval.

Regardless of the COP21 outcome, the Science Based Targets initiative is yet another demonstration that solid action on carbon management is a good deal for the bottom line. The 114 companies that have joined are among the most successful and innovative in the world -- and, by the way, it's not too late to join the pledge.

Image via Coca-Cola Enterprises

We have seen a surge in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs over the past several years, party because they make for great optics. In reality, however, more companies now realize that improving the lot of people and the planet is good for business. Now Caring for Climate (C4C), a joint initiative from UNEP, UN Global Compact and UNFCCC with a slew of partners (WRI, Oxfam, Climate Group, CDP, you name it),  has issued a report that urges companies to view climate adaptation not only through the lens of risk management, but as a moral imperative.

Four Twenty Seven, which describes itself as a social enterprise focused on building climate resilience through social innovation, authored the report on behalf of Caring for Climate.

Published as the COP21 talks in Paris wrap up, this analysis attempts to make a business case for adapting to the risks posed by climate change. While articulating why climate change poses challenges such as water scarcity, threats to public health and regulatory uncertainty, the report also makes it clear that addressing such risks also presents business opportunities. At the highest level, the report’s authors suggest companies take a four-pronged approach in order to support local communities while protecting their business:

• Invest in people, from those who work within a firm’s supply chain to its employees and customers


• Participate in efforts to protect ecosystems, watersheds and natural resources that have an impact on a company’s business


• Share knowledge and technical resources, instead of hiding behind the veneer of “proprietary information”


• Ensure that a company’s operations do not put additional stress on the local public infrastructure and community assets

The results, insist C4C, can strengthen a business that will in turn benefit from improved operations and competitiveness, see its value chain protected, find new business opportunities, and burnish its brand reputation.

The report tries to bolster its concussions by summarizing case studies of global companies currently undertaking climate resilience projects. Some of these examples are compelling. For example, Mars Inc. has invested in clean energy projects while working with rice and cacao farmers in order to improve crop yields while taking on new best practices, including reducing its water consumption. Allianz, the global insurer with a large agriculture-based clientele, has been involved in a program that helps to protect rice farmers from climate risks while enhancing crop insurance programs throughout Southeast Asia.

Other examples, however, could invoke some head-scratching. Nespresso is lauded for its investment in agroforestry, while the fact that the popularity of coffee pods is creating a massive waste problem is overlooked. And the jury is still out on whether Coca-Cola will really return 100 percent of the water used within its operations back to local communities and the environment.

While focused on what the private sector has accomplished and how it can do even more on the climate resilience front, the report also offers advice for policymakers. Government agencies can do more to present data-related local climate change risk in a format that businesses can easily incorporate in order to make the best possible decisions; fold climate change considerations into all planning processes and regulations instead of having them in a separate silo; and clearly communicate climate adaptation and resilience efforts so that investors are properly informed.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

By Kristie Middleton

Ambassadors the world over are convening in Paris to identify global climate change solutions. While we’re making progress on a new accord, will the elephant — or in this instance, the chicken, turkey and pig — in the room be ignored?

The evidence is mounting that we need a massive global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We may not all be diplomats who can create international policy, but there’s a tool all consumers have at our disposal that can make a huge difference: our forks and knives. A new report by think-tank Chatham House states, “The livestock sector is already responsible for 7.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent a year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – just under 15 percent of the global total, and equivalent to tailpipe emissions from all the world’s vehicles.”

If we’re going to avoid climate change, it’s clear that we need a global solution to ending factory farming. Raising and slaughtering billions of animals for food each year is the single largest human use of land, contributing to soil degradation, dwindling water supplies and air pollution. Simply put, we can’t curb climate change without making some serious changes to our diets by eating less meat, purchasing from farmers who use more humane and sustainable methods, and/or replacing animal products with food from plant sources.

Animal agriculture has taken a harsh turn in the last five decades. We’ve industrialized the production of animals for food, putting them wing to wing in factory farms. We confine animals in small cages and crates; mutilate them by cutting off their tails or beaks without painkillers; slaughter animals too sick or injured to walk; cause immense chronic pain and disease among chickens, turkeys and dairy cows by exaggerating certain body parts or reproductive capabilities; and administer non-therapeutic antibiotics to accelerate growth.

And, of course, what goes in must come out. In the United States alone, cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals raised on factory farms generate hundreds of million tons of manure. The vast quantity of manure produced on factory farms greatly exceeds the amount of land available to absorb it, making manure an often hazardous waste product that pollutes groundwater and putrefies the air.

All of this amounts to substantial environmental costs, as does finding — or rather, making — the land needed to produce such huge quantities of animals and crops. According to the Smithsonian Institution, we bulldoze seven football fields’ worth of Brazilian rainforest every minute to make way for cattle grazing. This destroys natural habitats for countless wild species and shatters important and fragile ecosystems, threatening people and animals alike.

If we’re serious about addressing global climate change, we must look to our plates. Fortunately, millions of people are already doing just that.  A group of global meat-reduction advocates are convening in Paris for a panel discussion on the growing global Meatless Monday movement this week. In the U.S., some of the biggest school districts, prestigious universities and largest foodservice companies are reducing the amount of meat they’re serving and adding more plant-based options. And globally, cities like Ghent, Belgium, and São Paulo are celebrating meat-free days. The Knesset -- Israel's parliament -- is meat-free on Mondays. And even the Norwegian Army is fighting the war on climate change with a meat-free Monday.

The horizon in the U.S. is looking promising, too. According to one recent Mintel study, while about 7 percent of Americans identify as vegetarians or vegans in the U.S., more than a third report regularly choosing meat-free meals. We can avoid meat produced from the worst factory-farming systems and practice the three R's: “reducing” or “replacing” consumption of animal products and “refining” our diets by choosing products from sources that adhere to higher animal welfare standards. We can go meat-free on Mondays, or do what the New York Times’ Mark Bittman recommends: eating vegan before 6 p.m. each day. In short, we can embrace more well-rounded, healthier and more sustainable diets that are better for us and for the planet. It’s time for leadership, and perhaps thinking outside of the lunchbox.

Image credit: Flickr/Barry Skeates

Kristie Middleton is the senior director of Food Policy for the Humane Society of the United States.

If you haven't invested in real estate within the Reno, Nevada, region, you should if you have the spare cash. The Tesla Battery Plant is under construction in Reno, and while there are some concerns over the tax credits Tesla was promised, business is booming in northern Nevada. The economic ripples, despite the debate in Nevada, are also reaching the East Coast.

Last week, Green Mountain Power, the B-Corp utility that services 75 percent of Vermont, has started offering Tesla’s Powerwall batteries to its customers. The first utility in the country to offer such a product, Green Mountain Power claims scoring the Powerwall will help its customers become more energy independent while reducing strain on the local grid during peak hours.

For homeowners who have solar panels on their rooftops, the promise of the Powerwall is that they can rely even less on the local grid. But for other customers who are still relying on conventional power, this energy storage package will allow them to use their lights, refrigerator or furnace in the event of a blackout. Green Mountain Power has promised that it will work with those who purchase the Powerwall to use these battery storage systems effectively, so that they can keep electricity costs down while reducing energy consumption during those times of peak demand.

Green Mountain Power customers have three options if they are interested in purchasing one of the 500 Powerwall batteries the utility has procured. First, consumers can lease the battery without any upfront costs, at a rate of $37.50 a month, which breaks down to $1.25 a day. Another option is to pay for the system upfront at $6,500 with shared access from the utility, which would grant the customer a rebate of $31.76 a month, or a payback period of 17 years and two months. The final option is to purchase the battery storage system outright without any agreement from Green Mountain Power.

Green Mountain Power expects to receive the first shipment from Tesla in 2016, and will first run the program as a pilot with some customers in the town of Rutland. Later in the year, the Powerwall will be available to all of its customers in Vermont.

For now, the biggest benefit to consumers buying the Powerwall will be for backup power — especially for rural residents where a power outage could mean a long wait until someone can repair those downed power lines. And even if all of those 500 battery storage systems are reserved quickly, that is still a tiny sliver of the 265,000 residential and business customers in tiny Vermont. Nevertheless, the Green Mountain Power program sends a signal to utilities that their business model has got to change — and new clean technologies can even offer these companies new revenue streams in the long run.

Image credit: Green Mountain Power

Our country, and the world, stands at a crossroads. The technologies to deliver both sustained economic growth and reduced emissions have all been invented. These technologies now require a path toward mass economies of scale to enable their delivery of lower prices, increased employment, reduced emissions and sustainable economic growth.

Two key steps are required to achieve these mass economies of scale. The first is to accurately price carbon at the cash register, pump and meter by adding carbon’s human health and environmental consequences. The second is to eliminate protectionist barriers that shield carbon-based industries (and states) at the expense of alternative technologies that will deliver lower costs and reduced emissions.

The carbon intense economic growth path is in decline

The 20th century’s path to economic growth was built on mass production of carbon fuels, materials and fertilizers. This path delivered unprecedented economic growth, as well as global warming and an obesity health crisis created through the mass marketing of cheap convenience food that is high in energy (calories) but low in nutrition. This 20th-century economic model is no longer sustainable as its externality costs, measured in terms of human health and planet sustainability, erodes its economic benefits.

The 21st century’s economic growth path

The 21st century is the Information Age. The 21st-century economy achieves growth by increasing the productivity of workers, businesses and consumers. It increases the productivity of things, including the consumption of materials and energy.

Examples abound. Uber is now the world’s largest taxi company, but it owns no taxis. The world’s largest accommodation provider, Airbnb, owns no real estate. Alibaba has displaced Walmart as the world’s largest retailer, but Alibaba owns no inventory. Companies that include General Motors and Dupont are pioneering how to run factories with zero waste and facilities using only renewable energy.

The Information Age is enabling job creation, entrepreneurship and economic growth while at the same time reducing the environmental footprint tied to commerce. This new economy delivers products that cost less while also meaning more in terms of human benefits. Sustained economic growth is now based on technologies in our factories, homes, cars and purses that increase efficiency, connectivity and productivity even while using less carbon and producing less pollution.

California successfully delinks economic growth and emissions

California is leading the U.S. in annual economic growth. It is the seventh largest economy in the world. The state’s list of corporate headquarters define the 21st century with companies that include Google, Apple, Disney, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, SolarCity and Tesla. It is achieving this economic growth while also reducing emissions.

California has achieved both economic growth and emissions reductions by taking two key steps. One was the state’s adoption of a cap-and-trade system that prices carbon for its emissions. Oil refineries and power plants pay to pollute, and these funds are used to reduce consumer electricity bills and invest in energy efficiency. The real economic value is at the pump and meter, where consumers see a more accurate price that reflects both production costs and the pollution impacts from consuming carbon-based energy.

The second key step was the state’s adoption of public policy that drove key technologies to mass economies of scale. California’s million solar roof program created the economies of scale that have enabled solar to be price-competitive with grid power. California is now pioneering building codes where all new residential buildings will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and all new commercial buildings will ZNE by 2030. This will accelerate mass economies of scale for smart building controls, LED lighting and onsite batteries that can store electricity produced from onsite solar systems.

California is also pursuing public policy toward having a million electric cars on its roads within the next 10 years. Achieving this milestone would catapult California to an electric vehicle inventory equal to all the electric vehicles sold to date around the world.

Combined, these public policies are increasing the state’s economic competitiveness and growing its economy by moving innovative technologies to mass economies of scale, enabling business startup/growth and creating local jobs. This at the same time carbon-focused states continue to struggle with stagnant or slow-growing economies.

Corporate CEOs are starting to embrace carbon pricing

It is not a surprise when Elon Musk advocates for a carbon price. But it is news when BP, a global oil and natural gas company, lists carbon pricing as one of its five steps toward achieving a low carbon economy.

Increasingly, more CEOs and businesses are embracing the idea of pricing carbon emissions. The ranks of CEOs advocating for carbon pricing now include Brad Smith, president of MicroSoft, Andrew Liveris, president of the Dow Chemical Co., Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Masashi Muromachi, chairman of the board of Toshiba Corp. These executives advocate for a carbon price to accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies that they believe will generate sustained job growth, improved economic competitiveness and increased productivity.

Green builds business and economic growth

A low-carbon economy is good for business. It enhances worker and process efficiency. It reduces costs. Most importantly, delivering products that cost less is a proven path to winning customers. Low-carbon technologies are emerging as the least costly solution, especially when carbon's externality costs are reflected in property damage, increasing healthcare costs and, ideally, at the pump and meter through carbon pricing.

Green does build business, and it is increasingly the propellant of economic growth in the 21st century.

Image credit: Flickr/Jeffrey