Search

A new report published by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) merely quantifies what is becoming increasingly apparent to all – except a few important folks in Washington D.C.

Coal usage in the United States has been falling steadily, if not dramatically, for several years. Now, as rumors grow that the Clean Power Plan is likely on the chopping block in our nation's capital, NRDC's latest report shows just how big of a folly it would be to abandon policies that promote clean energy – not only for the environment, but also for our economy and the very jobs President Donald Trump claims to want to bring back.

“The shift away from coal, and the ongoing retirement of aging coal plants, presents our country with an historic opportunity,” Starla Yeh, a senior policy analyst in NRDC’s Climate and Clean Air Program, said in a press release. “The U.S. is perfectly positioned to lead a global transition to clean energy, modernize its electricity grid, enlist tens of thousands of Americans in new efficiency and clean energy jobs—and help protect the planet from climate devastation.”

That last part – jobs – is key. One of the reasons Donald Trump won in nearly every coal-producing state is his promise to re-open coal mines and end what he called former President Barack Obama's “war on coal." But the truth is, if jobs are what matters, then we need to focus even more on clean energy, because that is where any potential for future job growth lies.

In fact, the Solar Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks jobs in the solar industry, found that solar alone accounted for 1 in 50 new American jobs this past year, a astounding 25 percent growth from the previous year. That's 17 times faster than the overall economy.

“With a near tripling of solar jobs since 2010, the solar industry is an American success story that has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs,” Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of the Solar Foundation, said in a press release. And that doesn't even take into consideration jobs in other clean-energy industries, such as wind, geothermal or energy storage.

As for coal? It is not only dirty but expensive, and it can't compete with solar anymore, even at record low prices. Other countries have gotten the message, as India, China and Vietnam are all shifting away from coal years ahead of schedule. Coal jobs are few, and getting fewer. We should help those in the industry to transition to clean-energy jobs, not give false promises about a “return of coal.”

While states and cities can make progress on their own, a strong, coherent national policy is crucial to the widespread adoption of clean energy. That is why so many were happy to see renewable energy tax credits extended last year. If Trump goes ahead and cancels the Clean Power Plan (which, as data from the Carbon Tax Center shows, has already accomplished many of its goals), it will send the wrong signal to the energy industry, deter investment and allow other countries to leapfrog us on the path toward a clean-energy future.

The science, data and reality is on our side: Coal isn't coming back, no matter how hard the climate deniers in D.C. try to revive it. It's time to move on.

Image credit: Tafe Sa Tonsley via Flickr

Last week on social media, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk made an offer that most of us would not refuse: the launch of a product to fix some problems, and if it cannot be done in 100 days, then it's free.

In this case, the promise was made via on Twitter. Early Friday, Musk responded to a founder of the software company Atlassian, Mike Cannon-Brookes, who said he would hustle to line up finances and political buy-in if Tesla could supply the battery storage he believes is necessary to solve the state of South Australia’s electricity grid woes.

Musk responded in kind:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/840032197637685249

And the banter continued, as Musk suggested a cost of $250 per 100 megawatt-hour storage systems, or about US$25 million in total. Cannon-Brookes replied that he would need about a week to sort out the details.

South Australia has struggled through an extremely hot summer during which much of the state, including its capital, Adelaide, suffered through “heatwave hell.” Extreme weather, including tens of thousands of lightening strikes, further contributed to mayhem across the state’s electricity grid. The result was weeks of rolling blackouts that frustrated its population of 1.7 million citizens, with no apparent end in sight.

Many politicians within Australia’s federal government have largely blamed clean-energy technologies, including surging rooftop solar, for the problems. Proponents of renewables scoffed at such suggestions and replied that extreme weather is the culprit. State governments also insisted that only statewide clean-energy targets can help Australia meet its COP21 commitments. The country is one of very few on Earth that anticipates coal consumption to remain steady, if not increase slightly, over the next 20 years.

Musk’s bold offer came literally hours after an event in Melbourne officially launched Tesla’s latest battery storage system, the Powerwall 2, for the Australian market. Tesla’s Australian partner, Natural Solar, which will sell and install the Powerwall in Australia, told one local daily that 1,000 units have already been pre-sold, with installations starting in a few weeks.

So was Musk’s bet a public relations ploy to highlight his company’s energy storage system during a time of crisis for many Australians? Or are we really close to an eagerly anticipated energy future, in which battery storage will finally allow renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power to scale?

Skeptics noted that in the past Musk has been to make bold announcements, only to fall short. For example, Tesla’s Model X SUV was slated to make its debut in mid-2014, but manufacturing struggles pushed that date back by over a year. The Model S and Model 3 have been sidetracked by their fair share of delays as well. But if Tesla can actually score the green light from government officials and follow through on this promise, expect more local and national governments, as well as large corporations, to take notice.

Meanwhile, South Australia’s government is considering all options to curtail the blackouts. Options under consideration include boosting natural gas capacity as well as evaluating other battery storage options. To that end, Cannon-Brookes told Reuters on Friday that his phone has not stopped ringing as he develops a plan to make this Tesla offer a reality.

Image credit: Jon Westra/Wiki Commons

Veyo is an example of future’s tech exciting path toward inclusivity. The San Diego startup is using future-tech tools like big data and predictive software to deliver lower cost, higher performance non-emergency medical transportation for the economically disadvantaged.

The company is at the heart of future tech's mass-market economic potential for providing all Americans with goods and services that are cheaper, easier to use, safer and healthier.

Veyo uses future tech to better serve the disadvantaged

If you are trying to understand the political rhetoric around healthcare costs, look no further than Medicaid. Medicaid provides government-funded medical care for the economically disadvantage. One out of five Americans, 70 million people, rely on Medicaid for their medical care.

Veyo’s business plan is to reduce the $5 billion that Medicaid annually spends to provide 3.6 million transportation events for the economically disadvantaged. Veyo’s strategy is to use big data and predictive software to reduce costly inefficiencies while also making quantum leaps in patient service. After only one year of operations, covering just $120 million out of this $5 billion annual revenue market segment, Veyo has achieved:

• $7 million in cost savings


• A reduction in average wait times to 10 minutes from an industry standard of one hour


• A 99.5 percent on-time pickup rate compared to an industry standard 90 percent


• Cutting customer grievances to approximately a 10th of industry standards.

Veyo did not achieve these results by cherry-picking only the least costly, or easiest served, customers. Their contracts are for statewide service. They provide full curb-to-curb service or, based on customer needs, door-to-door.

How Veyo uses future tech to cut costs and improve service

Veyo uses future tech in a two-step, interactive process: capture massive amounts of data tied to the delivery of EMT services, and process this data in real time to identify immediate action items that improve performance.

GPS vehicle-tracking is core to the company's big data stream. And Veyo is the first in the EMT industry to track every vehicle using GPS.

Veyo uses predictive software to process their big data streams in dispatching vehicles. This is done in real time. For example, if an originally dispatched vehicle cannot achieve the targeted on-time pickup goal, Veyo’s smart system will identify and dispatch an alternative vehicle to achieve the targeted pickup time.

Veyo connects its real-time predictive software system to a multiple-channel customer-communications system. Patients can choose to receive pickup status information through a phone call from Veyo, by checking a Web portal or by receiving smart phone alerts. This same type of multiple-channel communications path is also used by customers for service reservations.

Veyo’s future tech job model

Veyo provides a glimpse into how future tech jobs will be designed around people and service. Their drivers are:

• Credentialed


• Instructed in CPR


• Qualified to serve customers across languages and cultures


• Trained on privacy laws


• Receive specialized training on how to serve customers with intellectual limitations


• Equipped with Veyo’s future tech tools and trained in their use.

Veyo’s future tech culture

CEO Josh Komenda invited me to Veyo to see for myself. Its offices are filled with millennial work associates. Komenda explained that many of his employees could make more money working for other future tech companies. But they stay at Veyo because their work makes a difference for those less advantaged, he explained.

This is a lesson for every business. The companies most successful at recruiting millennials have baked being "cool with a purpose” into every job versus having a corporate responsibility department that does cool and purposeful things.

You can watch my four-minute edited video interview with Komenda below, where he explains how Veyo is using future tech to lower costs, improve customer service and grow jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uPUw2YJ2H2A

Future tech’s economic promise for all Americans

Right now, future tech looks pretty scary to most of us. We fear our jobs will be replaced by a smart machine. We question whether future tech has any benefits for us. Right now future tech looks it just works for the rich, who can afford a $100,000 all electric smart car that can go from zero to 60 in less than three seconds, or for future tech workers living in a few cities like San Francisco.

San Diego-based Veyo, with locations in Colorado, Idaho, Texas and Michigan, provides tangible evidence that future tech can be inclusive to all Americans. And future tech companies like Veyo are emerging as America’s economic and jobs growth engines.

Veyo is also demonstrating that future tech will serve all Americans.

That is future tech's, and our, future. Explosive growth won from delivering inclusive solutions that cost less and mean more.

Image credit: Pixabay

By Roger Aitken— Investing in emerging markets (EM) equities with high environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings leads to “better performance” when adjusted for country and sector factors, according to analysis from Dutch-headquartered asset manager NN Investment Partners (NN IP). And companies with a high ESG rating were found to have delivered “higher Sharpe ratio”.

Titled ‘The Materiality of ESG factors for emerging markets equity investment decisions: academic evidence’, and conducted in association with the European Centre for Corporate Engagement (ECCE) at Maastricht University’s School of Business and Economics, the report claims to be the “first comprehensive investigation” into the performance of EM equity portfolios using ESG criteria.

The findings, which tracked data between early 2010 and late 2015, were based on 650 companies in the EM universe in June 2012 and expanded to 751 companies by June 2015, found that gains from investing in companies with higher ESG ratings are stronger in EMs than in developed markets (DMs), while ownership structures of companies were the “most important corporate governance driver”.

The seven-page report also revealed that EM companies with a high ESG rating outperform those with a low rating on a risk-adjusted basis, and “excluding companies with controversial ESG behaviour” adds to overall performance.

Jeroen Bos, Head of Equity Specialties at NN IP, (pictured) said: “This new report confirms a number of important findings from our prior report on ESG factors in DM equities.

“We have now found a clear and positive relationship between incremental changes – or momentum – in a company’s ESG scores and investment performance in both developed and emerging markets.”

He added: “Excluding companies with controversial ESG behaviour also resulted in an uplift in the Sharpe ratio, similar to our experience in Developed Markets. The implication for investors is to consider both level and changes in ESG scores when constructing an emerging markets equity portfolio, as both factors contributed to risk-adjusted outperformance.”

The report contends that portfolios “should be adjusted” to take account of the fact that countries and sectors have a wide variety of ESG ratings stemming from different cultures, regulatory regimes, ownership structures and business practices.

Based on the analysis. an unadjusted portfolio of high ESG-rated stocks would have a large overweight to certain countries or sectors – skewing the performance.

Nathan Griffiths, Senior Portfolio Manager in NN IP’s Emerging Markets Equity Boutique, added: “It is important to understand how the performance of EM equities is affected by these ESG factors because there is growing demand among ESG investors for a broader choice of assets.”

He added: “Furthermore, the ESG challenges at play in EMs can be very different to those in DMs. But in general, if a company makes a meaningful effort to improve its ESG policies then it can, on average, expect better relative share price performance.”

EM companies are often assumed to give little or no consideration to the sort of sustainable practices that are increasingly considered an essential requirement for companies in developed markets. However, NN IP noted that the asset management industry has a “role to play in holding EM companies to account on ESG factors”, which will play an increasingly important role in investment decisions.

The latest study sourced data from Datastream, ECCE, Sustainalytics, MSCI ESG and NN IP research.

 

During his campaign for president, Donald Trump said he hoped to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement -- the first global treaty to tackle global warming, signed by more than 190 countries. He doubled down on his assertion in the weeks following his inauguration, and many in America and around the world grew troubled that the U.S. may renege on its commitments.

This week former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg boarded a trans-Atlantic flight to meet with Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and French President Francois Hollande. Perhaps in an effort to ease minds across the pond, the group discussed the progress cities are making on climate change, including in the United States.

Bloomberg insisted that American cities and businesses have no intention of breaking their promise to the world.

“I communicated to President Hollande that American cities, states and businesses will deliver the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement,” he said in a press statement. "In the U.S., action by state and local governments and businesses has replaced half the country’s coal-fired power production with cleaner forms of energy and put the country on an irreversible path to meet our Paris commitment -- irrespective of future national policies.”

Analysis by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies, backs up this assertion: Coal retirements and new clean energy through 2025 will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by at least 437 million metric tons. That accounts for 60 percent of America's commitments under the Paris agreement.

And actions already underway by leading U.S. cities, states and businesses are poised to close the gap: 12 American cities alone can deliver up to 131 million metric tons of CO2 savings by 2025, according to C40, a group that connects 90 global cities representing over 650 million people around climate action.

Some of C40's American members are at the top of the pack when it comes to delivering on our stated greenhouse gas reduction targets -- and their mayors quickly rallied behind Bloomberg, saying they have no plans to back down to the Trump administration. Let's take a closer look at the leaders (in alphabetical order).

1. Atlanta

Fun fact: Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed is the only U.S. city leader on the board of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. But that's only the start of how Georgia's largest city is taking on climate change.

“The city of Atlanta leads the nation in square footage of commercial building space committed to energy efficiency through the Better Buildings Challenge," Reed said in a press statement. "In addition, we deployed electric vehicles in the city’s fleet and installed solar panels on municipal facilities. Local actions like these show that cities are where hope meets the street."

Atlanta’s citywide sustainability initiative, Power to Change, united more than 300 stakeholders, including residents, schools and businesses.

The resulting Climate Action Plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, using 2009 as a baseline. That target increases to 40 percent by 2030. The city set economic, environmental and social targets in its plan -- from educating companies about resource efficiency to increasing renewables and energy efficiency.

“We are engaging in the tough but necessary work to pioneer a cleaner path forward," Reed insisted. "In such a connected and economically competitive world, it is up to cities now to work together to push ahead. We won’t slow down, and we won’t change course.”

2. Austin, Texas

https://youtu.be/4vvIMMTVGkQ

The capital city of the Lone Star state has big plans for climate action. Austin is targeting carbon neutrality for city operations by 2020, a goal officials set only five years ago but are confident they can meet. Austin is set to hit net zero emissions by 2050 if all goes as planned.

And regardless of what happens in Washington, the city has no plans to back down.

“Austin will not stop fighting climate change," Mayor Steve Adler said in a press statement. "Worldwide, cities will lead in achieving climate treaty goals because so much of what’s required happens at the local level. Regardless of what happens around us, we're still Austin, Texas.”

3. Boston

Boston released its first citywide climate action plan on Earth Day 2011, and it updates the plan every three years. The most recent iteration, launched in 2014, calls for greater climate preparedness and community engagement.

When it comes to the metrics, Boston targeted a 25 percent reduction in GHGs by 2020 -- a goal it reached seven years early. That puts the city well on its way to meeting its whopping emissions 80 percent cut by 2050. The 2014 plan sets sector-specific targets so residents, businesses, institutions and government know what's expected of them.

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh joined his peers in "reaffirming" his pledge to support the Paris Agreement. "To compete in a 21st century economy, cities across the country must proactively prepare and reverse the course of our changing climate to safeguard our future," Walsh said in a press statement. We couldn't agree more.

4. Chicago

Chicago has emerged as a favorite punching bag for the Trump administration.

And while the city's spike in violent crime is troubling to residents and outsiders alike, Chicago is hardly the first major city to have this problem. Its neighbors like Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore and Newark, New Jersey, make regular appearances on those 'highest murder rate lists,' an unwanted title Chicago didn't even earn last year. (The city ranked No. 8 in the nation.) But like its neighbors, Chicago and its residents do not let struggles with crime define them.

The city is home to North America's largest and longest-running GHG reduction program. From 2003 to 2010, this included a comprehensive cap-and-trade program with offsets. In 2011, the Chicago Climate Exchange launched an official Offsets Registry Program to register verified emission reductions based on established protocols.

Its climate action plan targets improvements for the entire metro area, home to more than 10 million people. The five-pronged plan tackles energy efficiency, renewable energy, improved transportation and more -- and every target includes an estimated greenhouse gas reduction, so leaders and residents know what's necessary to make the math add up.

"Last month I released our most recent emissions report showing a 7 percent decline in Chicago’s carbon footprint while we grow our population and jobs," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in a press statement. "We will continue to take bold action locally to reduce our emissions and combat climate change, and to urge mayors and leaders across the country to do the same.”

5. Houston

“For too long, Houston has seen the devastating impacts of climate change, from severe flooding to historic droughts. But Houston is resilient and our city is working harder than ever to build a sustainable economy and future that will shield our community from a changing climate," Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said in a press statement.

"With hundreds of miles of bike networks, increased energy efficiency in homes and renewable energy sources in city buildings, we’re working with every citizen in Houston to do our part and show our collective commitment to action."

He's not wrong: The city began goal-setting for climate action back in 2008. Its expansive bike network spans 345 miles. And it now meets a little over 10 percent of its energy needs with renewable power, making it one of the nation's top 10 clean energy users. The city is in the process of finalizing its most recent sustainability action plan.

6. Los Angeles

“We will do all we can in Los Angeles to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, regardless of what happens in Washington. And we are already doing our part," said Mayor Eric Garcetti, who serves as vice-chair of C40 under Hidalgo of Paris.

Los Angeles is home to the largest municipal fleet of pure electric vehicles in the country, as well as the most publicly available EV charging stations, Garcetti claimed. And as of 2013, the city reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent since 1990 while creating 20,000 green jobs.

Last November, voters overwhelmingly approved a $120 billion investment in public transit, including light rail, subways, bike lanes and "other measures that will drive down emissions," the mayor asserted in a press statement. The city's climate action plan calls for a 45 percent reduction in GHGs by 2035 and an 80 percent cut by 2050.

7. New Orleans

“The city of New Orleans is on the frontlines of climate change and no matter who holds office in Washington, D.C., that fact will not change," Mayor Mitch Landrieu said in a press statement. "Reports of the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Agreement are deeply troubling to our community."

For its part, New Orleans is surging forward. Last year Landrieu partnered with the Trust for Public Land and the Greater New Orleans Foundation to develop a public data and mapping tool to inform green infrastructure decisions. Community groups like the Lower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development advocate for sustainable rebuilding methods and for the neighborhood to become carbon-neutral by 2030. The mostly low-income district was among the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina.

And as the city faces down inevitable flooding, a new resilience plan aims to stop fighting it -- with infrastructure that's built intentionally to let water in.

"It would be an abdication of our commitment to protect and strengthen our communities to do anything less than shield our citizens from the devastating impacts of a changing climate that New Orleans knows all too well," Landrieu said. "As U.S. cities, we stand committed to joining fellow mayors and national leaders on the global stage to let the world know that we are ready to get the job done.”

8. Oakland, California

Adopted by the city council in 2012, Oakland's energy and climate action plan calls for a 36 percent cut in GHG emissions by 2020, using a 2005 baseline. Action items include taking vehicles off city streets, boosting renewable energy and increasing waste diversion.

“Cities across the country are increasingly becoming hubs of change through innovative climate action," Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a press statement. "Meanwhile, like so many committed communities in the U.S. and around the world, our work is only just beginning."

9. Phoenix

With its drought-prone climate and sky-high temperatures, Phoenix has a lot to contend with when it comes to reducing emissions. But that didn't slow the Arizona city down.

In 2015, Phoenix met its target to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent from a 2005 baseline. It blew past its previous target, a modest 5 percent cut, three years ahead of schedule. The city will soon set 2025 targets to further reduce emissions.

With plans to bolster public transportation and renewable energy, Phoenix hopes to become a zero-waste, carbon-neutral city by 2050, Mayor Greg Stanton said in a press statement.

“Phoenix will continue to show how swift and ambitious action at the local level, combined with committed partners around the globe, can advance climate progress," Stanton said. "In Phoenix, we can’t afford to wait, and we know that our best defense is offense."

"Our economic vitality and sustainable future depends on action against a fiercely changing climate," Stanton went on. "If we are going to make a global-scale impact, then cities must lead to ensure a successful implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

10. Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh's most recent climate action plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2023, using 2003 as a baseline. And the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative brings stakeholders from across the city together to achieve this goal.

"Regardless of the vision at the national level on climate change, Pittsburgh will continue on our path," Mayor William Peduto said in a press statement. "And we’re not alone."

11. Portland, Oregon

In 1993 Portland introduced America's first city-focused action plan, and "we haven't looked back," said Mayor Ted Wheeler.

Its most recent climate action plan calls for an aggressive 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and an 80 percent cut by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.

"No matter which way the winds are blowing in Washington, Portland has always continued to innovate and implement ambitious new policies to achieve a low-carbon future," Wheeler insisted. "Now our climate leadership is needed more than ever."

12. San Francisco

It's no secret that 3p's home city of San Francisco is serious about climate change. It hopes to cut GHGs by 25 percent below 1990 levels by the end of this year, on the way to a 40 percent cut by 2025. The city is also targeting zero waste and 100 percent renewable energy for residential buildings.

“In the face of national uncertainty, San Francisco is more committed than ever to providing real solutions to climate change,” said San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee. “We know that San Francisco and other cities worldwide must continue to lead by taking bold actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

13. Seattle

Seattle is home to one of the country's most aggressive emissions targets: The city hopes to curb transportation-related emissions by 80 percent by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions citywide by 2050. Its climate action plan also includes provisions to "foster economic prosperity" and "enhance social equity," meaning officials don't intend to let the city's economy or its citizens suffer as a result of its sustainability goals.

"The United States is facing a watershed moment on climate change. In Seattle, we’re committed to being environmental stewards and guardians of our climate progress," Mayor Ed Murray said in a press statement. "To protect our climate progress, we’re delivering boldly on the goals set by the Paris Agreement because now, the future is in our hands.”

14. Washington, D.C.

While Washington, D.C.'s most famous new resident seems hell-bent on deriding America's commitment to the Paris climate agreement, its local government has different ideas.

The city hopes to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, using 2006 as a baseline, on the way to the coveted (and science-based) 80 percent cut by 2050.

“The tides may have turned in Washington, D.C., but one election does not change our values or commitments," insisted Mayor Muriel Bowser. "As mayors, our work to strengthen and protect our communities from the rising impacts of climate change must continue and that commitment matters."

"If all U.S. mayors come together to pursue rapid emissions reductions within our cities, by 2025 we can contribute more than one third of the emissions reductions needed to meet the U.S.'s commitment to the Paris Agreement."

What is your city doing to address climate change? Do a quick Web search to find out. If your city does not have a stated climate action plan, contact your mayor, city council and representatives to change that. 

Image credits: Pixabay (no attribution required) 

In what should come as no surprise, the Donald Trump administration is close to eliminating the Clean Power Plan, which launched two years ago.

As E&E News and other environmental news sites reported, Trump is expected to sign an executive order next week that would direct the Department of Justice to cease its legal defense of the plan in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Shortly after former President Barack Obama inked the plan, 26 state attorneys general filed suits in opposition. The Justice Department was tasked with defending the plan in court. Stalling the litigation would essentially “freeze” the case, E&E reported.

Most legal experts agree that the result would bar appellate judges from issuing a decision on the plan, which was expected this spring. But if other states or NGOs keep defending the rule, the Trump White House would need to take further action in order to scuttle the plan, posits E&E reporter Evan Lehmann.

The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to set a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The idea is that by setting ambitious standards for CO2 emissions, utilities would seek cleaner sources of energy, including renewables. Each U.S. state was tasked with adopting its own clean energy plan, or following one devised by the EPA -- which resulted in those two dozen states filing suit against the federal government. (One state, North Carolina, which narrowly elected a Democratic governor, dropped its litigation yesterday.)

The Obama administration said the results would range from an improvement in public health to lower utility prices for consumers in the long run. Many environmental groups, along with hundreds of large corporations including eBay, General Mills and Nestlé, supported the plan. Other business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, objected to what they claimed were excessive costs and the threatened loss of jobs in the energy industry.

The problem with the anticipated executive order, however, is that previous litigation drove the EPA to respond to a Supreme Court inquiry by deciding that, based on scientific evidence, carbon emissions were a risk to human health. Hence the agency was required to develop tighter emissions standards, which led to the Clean Power Plan.

As with any laws passed by Congress, the legislation only provides a framework. It is then up to a government agency to craft the regulations in order for those laws to have teeth (and prevent the federal government from being sued, which, in fairness, often happens anyway). Hence the White House would either have to propose a rule with no teeth, or find another way to dismantle the plan completely.

This latest chess move by the Trump administration marks another step in what critics have described as a “war on science.” Earlier this week, the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology removed any words related to science from its mission statement. References to the 2015 Paris climate talks were also largely scrubbed from the EPA’s site, though a few news releases announcing U.S. participation could still be found as of press time.

The Trump administration's overarching goal, explains Emily Atkin of the New Republic, is to muffle -- or outright stop -- the EPA’s work related to carbon emissions and their role in increasing climate change risks.

In the end, dismantling much of the EPA’s mandate will boost Trump’s promise to revive the coal industry and manufacturing jobs, which critics say were demolished by the former president’s policies. But the statistics show that manufacturing has surged following its near collapse during the 2008-2009 fiscal crises, and coal is on its last legs largely because of the changing economics of the U.S. energy industry.

Projections suggest that coal jobs will continue to decline in raw numbers, and other political leaders have realized that the industry is fading and banks are increasingly loathe to finance new coal mining projects. And although this siege on the Clean Power Plan may be successful, it's unlikely to curb those market shifts.

Image credit: Coolcaesar/Wiki Commons

For months, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to write a comprehensive assessment of the impact the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and a potential spill under the Missouri River could have on North Dakota’s poorest indigenous community.

After the Corps released an Environmental Impact Statement in August of last year, the tribe stepped up its efforts even further. It charged that the report’s controversial conclusion -- “the proposed [pipeline] would not disproportionately affect identified minority or low-income populations” (3.10.2.2, pg. EA-72) -- reflected the partisan views of the pipeline company, Dakota Access LLC, and wasn’t accurate.

Well, it turns out they may have been right. According to court records, it appears the source of that social justice analysis wasn’t the Army Corps of Engineers (which is responsible for overseeing and signing off on any critical decisions that would affect the pipeline’s approval), but the applicants themselves: Dakota Access LLC and its contractor, HDR Inc.

A confidential memo addressed to the Corps from Dakota Access’ senior project director Tom Siguaw and the company’s contractor, HDR Inc., outlines the research the companies took to make the above conclusion.

Rather than looking at the tribe’s economic status and the impact an oil leak could have on the community’s drinking water access and agricultural needs (the pipeline is due to cross underneath the tribe’s only water source), it used comparisons of other low-income communities in the state to defend its argument that there were no environmental justice concerns. The pipeline, the authors justified, would “cross less than the overall state average of 12 percent of impoverished populations, concluding that the pipeline does not disproportionately impact low-income or impoverished populations.”

The memo also stated, as a point of defense, that the current route would impact 1 percent fewer Native Americans and Alaska Natives than a formerly considered route, which passed by white, upper-income communities near Bismarck. “[The] impacts [of the current route] are less proportionate to Native Americans than non-minorities or other minorities. Therefore, there is no basis or conclusion of an [environmental justice] claim to Native Americans related to the preferred route.”

The assessment, which was then largely wrapped into the Army Corps impact statement, excluded data describing the localized impact an oil leak would have if it were to occur under the Missouri River.

“They've gerrymandered the things they are comparing in the analysis to reach an absurd result, which is that the selection of the Oahe crossing instead of the Bismarck route doesn't have environmental justice implications,” attorney Jan Hasselman told Inside Climate News.  Hasselman is representing the Standing Rock Sioux through the legal organization Environmental Justice.

The memo, and the data used to support the pipeline’s route, has become a centerpiece example for activists who maintain that Native Americans -- and specifically North Dakota native communities -- are disproportionately mistreated when it comes to grievances, job access and economic opportunities.

Compared to the largely white, upper-income residential populations of North Bismarck, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe remains the poorest community in the state, with unemployment rates that have hovered between 40 and 80 percent. Most of its employment base is in the service sector, but farming still plays a significant part in the community’s survival and could be wiped out in the event of an oil leak.

But Dakota Access LLC’s memo isn’t the only reason why Standing Rock’s economic and cultural representation was overshadowed in this report.

The Army Corps–St Louis’ statement included a summary of potential environmental justice impacts, but disregarded the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux as adversely affected because the pipeline crossed near their property and under their water source, but didn’t cross their land.

The Corps also spelled out its responsibilities in terms of an environmental assessment, which it saw as only “the crossings of [Corps-St. Louis District] projects and flowage  easements that would require consent by [the District] (pg. 119).”

While the confidential memo to the Corps acknowledged the existence and the water rights of the Standing Rock Sioux, the tribe was never given a copy. And the Army Corps’ final EIS failed to mention that a reservation of more than 8,000 relied exclusively on the Missouri River for its water.

Standing Rock injunction to stop DAPL rejected by courts

With the latest court decision, prospects look dim for the tribes' efforts to stop the pipeline’s operation -- at least for now. On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg rejected a request for an injunction from the two tribes, giving the go-ahead for the final stages of the pipeline. The project could be operational by next week.

The Standing Rock Sioux released a statement discounting the impact of Tuesday’s ruling on their case.

“While this preliminary ruling is disappointing, it’s not surprising. It is very difficult to get an injunction in a case like this. The bigger legal battle is ahead – we stand strong,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II.

The tribe is challenging the pipeline’s approval on two counts: the lack of a complete EIS and treaty rights, which the tribe said were recognized by former President Barack Obama when he ordered a stop to the pipeline in December.

The outcome of the tribes’ suits may say a lot about how this new administration – and, by extension, the courts – regard environmental justice as a valid as an entitled right. But it also offers a warning flag to communities that expect  environmental impact statements to unilaterally reflect the strength of a just cause.

It would seem that in today’s politicized climate, pipelines and environmental assessments can occasionally share similar pathways to completion.

Image credit: Flickr/Irina Groushevaia

By Toni Irving, Ph.D.

Every year, thousands of employees at companies across the country admirably set aside a day or even a week for community service projects – planting trees, painting murals, distributing food, the list goes on. There is no doubt that employee volunteer programs boost community engagement, morale and loyalty within companies. However, how many of these companies ask community organizations what they really need?

In one instance, a young woman who coordinated volunteers at a local food bank admitted that her staff put in significant effort to find projects. While the flowers volunteers planted and the fresh coats of paint they applied brightened the building, these endeavors made little impact on the day-to-day challenges faced by the people frequenting her food bank.  Many organizations continue hosting service groups in hopes that the efforts will lead to additional investment – whether financial or skill-based – by the companies or their employees.

At Get IN Chicago, we have learned a thing or two about capacity through our work with organizations serving acutely high-risk youth. Get IN Chicago funds and studies violence-prevention programs working with this group of young people, who are at the greatest risk for gun violence based on factors such as school absenteeism rates, mental health issues, justice system involvement, and the presence of a previously or currently incarcerated parent.

In partnership with the Chapin Hall Research Center at the University of Chicago, we conducted an organizational capacity assessment of 125 community-based organizations (CBOs) in seven urban communities around their resources, structures and processes to conduct strategic planning, staff training and fundraising.

This is how we identified their strengths and needs, and by extension the needs of other organizations of similar size and scope likely facing the same challenges.  In our experience, we found there were significant gaps in capacity in the very organizations on the front lines supporting acutely high-risk youth.

However, these same issues can be found at the majority of nonprofit groups or community-based programs today, whether they’re trying to solve hunger, homelessness or inequality.  And yet, the bulk of funding dollars are targeted to program delivery without attention to capacity-building for those implementing the work.

Community organizations cannot afford to defer capacity any longer. Simply put, no matter how proven an intervention is, it is unlikely to have impact if organizations lack the capacity to implement with regularity.

Last July alone, three Fortune 500 companies launched a Global Day of Service with tens of thousands of employees. It is clear there are corporations and employees who are willing to volunteer and want to give back to their communities. These companies could easily have adopted 60 or more community-based organizations and produced stronger outcomes and deeper connections by taking a more skills-based and capacity-focused approach.

Imagine if their corporate employees could choose from a menu of support areas that highlighted the greatest needs of community-based organizations, and employees could sign-up based upon their expertise. Imagine if that option was also available to city residents.

In Chicago, for example, nearly 50 percent of area households volunteer, according to Giving in Chicago, a study by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy for the Chicago Community Trust. Imagine what an unbelievable impact corporations and communities could make if they invested their time and dollars in areas specifically needed or requested by the nonprofit (e.g. managing a budget versus planting trees).

True corporate social responsibility reflects a commitment to the communities where you conduct business with an eye to sustainable impact. It is no secret that communities hardest hit by poverty and violence, for example, often have limited access to the sophisticated resources and strategic insight that could deliver long-term change.

Corporations are uniquely positioned to promote collaboration, align existing investments, and encourage more outcome-driven activities that could potentially energize more investors to get involved.

Rather than blindly signing up for one day of service, let’s start asking how we can make corporate social responsibility efforts more of a strategic collaboration to meet common goals.

As the Point of Light Foundation rightfully identifies, “Effective EVPs (employee volunteer programs) leverage employee skills and corporate assets, enhance corporate operations, and adopt structures and policies that allow them to scale and deepen engagement.”

To put the impact into further perspective, Get IN Chicago estimates there are thousands of acutely high-risk youth in the seven Chicago communities hardest hit by poverty and violence -- and there's not nearly enough capacity to serve them.

Our young people – and any group or risk population that needs help, for that matter – deserve more.

Place-based and capacity-focused approaches to corporate community service projects will enable companies to leverage their investments with a focus on collaboration and sustainability, so that when their annual day of service is over, the investment isn’t.

Image credit: Pixabay

Toni Irving, Ph.D., is a public policy expert. She has been at the helm of Get IN Chicago since 2013 as the Executive Director and leads the organization’s efforts to fund programs that support and empower communities hit hardest by poverty and violence, working closely with staff, private funders, grantees and the acutely high-risk youth that Get IN Chicago serves. Previously, Dr. Irving was the Deputy Chief of Staff to former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, and was also a faculty member at the University of Notre Dame.

A group of transportation and emissions-control companies and trade associations want to give Scott Pruitt a piece of their mind. This week they sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator voicing their support the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). The group is requesting that the clean air program be included in the Donald Trump administration’s budget outline that will be released this month.

DERA provides funding to encourage technoloies that reduce emissions from diesel vehicles and equipment by up to 90 percent.

It is a program with strong bipartisan support. Authored by a Republican, it passed in 2005 with a 92-to-1 vote in the Senate.

The legislation had “the strong support of the Bush Administration,” the companies and trade associations wrote in their letter to Pruitt. The George W. Bush administration requested funding for the program in every year’s budget after it was first authorized. And it is the “only EPA program for which all regions sought additional funding,” the group said. 

DERA is a voluntary and cost-effective program. Non-federal matching funds kick in $3 for every $1 in federal assistance, according to the EPA’s own estimates. And that $4 in public and private funding generates $7 to $18 in health and economic benefits. And states received 30 percent of the funding for DERA support programs.

“Since implementation, DERA has become one of the most cost-effective federal clean air programs,” the group claimed in its letter.

And they got specific, claiming:

• DERA has upgraded almost 73,000 vehicles or pieces of equipment and saved over 450 million gallons of fuel.


• The total lifetime emission reductions achieved through DERA funding total 14,700 tons of particulate matter (PM) and 335,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), which equates to about $12.6 billion in health benefits.

Despite this success, the companies say DERA is still needed because diesel engines stick around for so long. Nearly 3 out of 5 diesel trucks and buses on the road today are over 10 years old, and they release more emissions than vehicles using current technology. Without DERA, older vehicles will remain on the road until they conk out, and that will further increase emissions.

Pruitt has requested a 25 percent funding cut for the EPA, which means the agency must identify or even eliminate programs to meet that goal. The Office of Management and Budget, under the helm of a former Tea Party House member, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, identified DERA as one of the programs that could be cut.

However, there may be reason to hope that DERA will survive. Last week, Pruitt said he is “concerned” about some of the “grants that have been targeted.”

That might be a slim hope considering Pruitt's history: As the state attorney general of Oklahoma, he filed numerous lawsuits against the EPA. Advocates say he is clearly a man picked by the Trump administration to gut the very agency he is supposed to lead.

And on Thursday, Pruitt wiped away the optimism many held after last week's regulation comments: In a line that smacked of satire straight out of the Onion, Pruitt said he does not agree that carbon dioxide is a "primary contributor" to climate change. Yikes. 

Even if DERA remains intact, many other programs will undoubtedly be cut and the federal agency’s ability to fight pollution could slip, along with its ability to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. (You know, according to scientists, not politicians.)

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is not happy with the proposed budget cuts. She told the press she is concerned that the federal agency could lose 42 percent of its scientists. “I mean, this is not just disagreeing with the science and wanting to deny it,” she told MSNBC. “This is telling half of the scientists that they are no longer welcome in the premier science agency in the world, the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Image credit: Flickr/Emma Smith