ACE

Category: Environmental Policy

  • Introduction to Greenhouse Gas Pollution and Regulation

    Introduction to Greenhouse Gas Pollution and Regulation

    Introduction

    Greenhouse gas pollution is a main contributor to climate change. Carbon dioxide and methane are examples of greenhouse gas pollutants, and human activities such as energy production and transportation emit them (see Figures 1 and 2). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has declared that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 50% by 2030 to prevent catastrophic and potentially irreversible effects of climate change. However, current emissions reductions by governments are not projected to meet that goal.

    Corporations, governments, and consumers all contribute to greenhouse gas pollution. One study indicates 100 companies are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the United States is known to be the “the largest historical emitter” and currently has the second highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Therefore, reducing the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions could have a significant impact on climate change.

    Figure 1.Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2019Image courtesy of the EPA Figure 2.Image courtesy of the EPA 

    Current State of Policies in the U.S.

    In the United States, national policies regarding greenhouse gas pollution involve federal legislation like the Clean Air Act and international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords. 

    • Federal Policies: The Clean Air Act of 1970 is a landmark piece of legislation that called for the implementation of air quality standards. The law tasked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with creating and enforcing limits on air emissions from both mobile and industrial sources. The law also gave regulatory power to individual states, giving them the authority to implement their own programs and monitor or report violators. These measures include the creation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, State Implementation Plans, New Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the definition of “air pollutants” includes greenhouse gasses, giving the EPA a stronger basis for arguing for the mitigation of climate change through pollutant regulation. The Energy Act of 2020 is another major federal law seeking to combat climate change through energy efficiency and innovation. Its main goals are to increase energy efficiency, modernize the energy grid, and advance research and development in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and carbon capture technologies. Specifically, it directs the Department of Energy to research and develop energy storage, nuclear, geothermal and carbon-capture technologies to advance a gradual shift away from fossil fuels.
    • International Agreements: The Paris Agreement is an international accord that seeks to limit climate change to within 1.5°C. The agreement was adopted in 2015 by 197 countries, including the United States. Nations submitted emission reductions targets, or intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), and these commitments are expected to strengthen overtime. For transparency and accountability purposes, the Paris Agreement keeps record of progress updates. While the Trump Administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the Biden Administration rejoined and committed to reducing emissions “by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.”
    • State Policies: There are many non-federal policy options and proposals for greenhouse gas regulation. They include carbon pricing frameworks like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, national or state-level renewable energy portfolio standards, energy resource efficiency standards, and tax credits for individual incentivization.

    Arguments for Government Regulation of Greenhouse Gasses

    The majority of US residents view climate change as a major threat and many have called for greater government involvement in tackling it. Although individuals are taking steps to reduce their emissions, a large proportion of emissions comes from corporations and industrial activity. Proponents of greenhouse gas regulations argue government involvement is necessary to reduce emissions because governments have the power to regulate companies in a way that individuals do not. For example, the government has the authority to impose carbon pricing frameworks, enforce emission reduction deadlines, and hold industries accountable for violations of clean air laws. 

    The Build Back Better Act is the most significant proposition addressing climate change in American history. Energy efficiency projects, electric vehicles, and climate change research would all receive funding from the bill. In addition, the act would provide jobs for citizens by guaranteeing clean energy technologies and materials be made here in the United States. Lastly, the Build Back Better Act proposes strategies to reduce the cost of transitioning to clean energy, and make eco-friendly living more accessible to middle class families. The Build Back Better Bill has stalled in the Senate, and it is not currently expected to be passed into law. 

    Economic Concerns

    Most of the American public, including over 75 percent of Republican voters, is concerned about the threat of climate change and supports some sort of greenhouse gas regulation. However, Republican legislators remain firmly opposed to greenhouse gas regulations, citing mainly economic concerns. The resistance stems from a desire for U.S. energy self sufficiency, avoiding rising household consumption costs, and ensuring grid stability. 

    Many supporters of deregulation are impressed by the economic benefits the United States enjoyed from an increase in oil and natural gas production; they point to increased competitiveness in international markets, added domestic jobs, and a more favorable balance of trade. Some argue energy policy should be an ‘economics leads’ approach, meaning the sector should prioritize first and foremost economic potential while demand is high, and if it decreases, oil and gas consumption may phase out on its own. Through this lens, they assert that increased greenhouse gas regulation in the U.S. will not aid in achieving emissions goals; rather, it will increase imports and dependence on energy sources globally. Therefore, the environmental impact of oil/gas production may be higher once transportation emissions and potentially less regulated foreign replacement fuel emissions controls are accounted for. In theory, by following economics and halting regulation, emissions will gradually decline and economic shocks can be avoided.

    Others argue that the costs of increased regulation are too high for common people and families when compared to the predicted benefit of increased bureaucratic regulations. Some conservatives suggest greenhouse gas regulations could raise household energy prices, which would burden households and slow consumption. Opponents of greenhouse gas regulation argue that carbon pricing could cause a twofold problem for average Americans: first, that it would destroy American jobs, leading to outsourcing, and second, that energy producers would pass on the cost of carbon pricing to consumers.

    Finally, critics highlight concerns over the stability of the electricity grid as renewable energy becomes increasingly common. Electricity generation from wind and solar resources are highly variable, which some argue poses risks to the energy grid’s reliability. Skeptics of renewable energy have also blamed renewable energy for large-scale blackouts, like those in Texas in February 2021.  Overall, opponents of greenhouse gas regulations have long pointed to the risks of grid instability and economic harm in arguing against governmental regulation and renewable energy production.

    Future Regulation

    Future regulations are uncertain as the pending Supreme Court Case, West Virginia vs. EPA, has the potential to undermine the current scope of regulatory ability and power of the EPA and the federal executive branch. The case challenges their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and observers expect the Court to rule against the EPA. The ultimate decision will be indicative of the level of climate action that the Biden Administration can accomplish and the future of greenhouse gas regulation in the United States.

    The international community is already designating specific environmental concerns to the United Nations Climate Change Conference 27th Session Conference of Parties (COP27) agenda. The main action areas for this conference are emissions reduction, with a specific call on the U.S. and other G20 nations to take leadership positions. Governments have also agreed on the need to address climate change impacts, adaptation, and climate finance at large. The UN has highlighted the urgency of these greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and the combined commitment of governments, civil society, and the private sector in order to meet the 1.5°C ambition.

  • How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    Green Gentrification Overview 

    Gentrification occurs when wealthier, often white residents move into an existing low income urban district, displacing marginalized communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites three key aspects of gentrification:

    1. Rising property values and rental costs;
    2. New construction, upgrading, or renovation of residential areas; 
    3. Turnover in the local population, including changes in the racial or ethnic composition. 

    When the protection and cleanup of brownfields, locally undesirable land uses (LULUs), other vacant and derelict land (VDL), or the introduction of urban green spaces and gardens instigates this trend, it is called environmental, or green, gentrification. 

    A brownfield is an expanse of land that may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are about 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. today. Locally undesirable land uses include nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic waste dumps, incinerators, smelters, airports, freeways, and other sources of environmental, economic, or social degradation. Vacant and derelict land is property where industry once existed but became obsolete due to abandonment by absentee landlords, or brownfields. Attractive green spaces are amenities like parks and community gardens. They also include revitalization projects that incorporate higher quantities of natural vegetation, fields, and flowers in urban spaces. Renewing these spaces or introducing attractive green spaces without anti-displacement measures has displaced underserved residents from their newly improved communities, which some have referred to as environmental racism. Displacement caused by environmental gentrification manifests in three forms.

    1. Direct Displacement forces residents to move because of rent increases and building renovations.
    2. Exclusionary Displacement happens when housing choices for low income residents are limited.
    3. Displacement pressures are created when supports and social services low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood. 

    Causes of Green Gentrification

    In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration enforced a series of racially discriminatory lending practices (known as redlining). These made it harder for Black Americans to purchase homes and accumulate wealth, so individuals from lower income and minority communities relocated to urban, inner-city areas where housing options were affordable. 

    These areas often bordered brownfields, VDLs, or LULUs. Over the years, public and private interest in revitalizing these areas has increased. Redeveloping brownfields increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, and improves the environment. Similarly, LULU rehabilitation can drive up local real estate prices while improving sanitation conditions for minority communities. As a result, developers have begun capitalizing on VDLs and other land in communities of color. Low cost land is often transformed into luxury residential units and projects with green amenities to attract affluent consumers market. 

    The EPA’s Brownfield and Land Revitalization Program, created in 1995, incentivizes local governments to invest in cleaning up and redeveloping these areas to initiate urban renewal projects through grants issued by the EPA. The program’s initiatives focus on environmental cleanup and conservation practices for areas with heavy environmental devastation (which are predominantly located in or surrounding communities of color). However, these policies focus on their projects’ environmental and economic benefits and often do not consider consequences for existing residents which leaves marginalized residents vulnerable to displacement. 

    Problems and Effects of Green Gentrification

    When low income populations are priced out of their neighborhoods, there is a high risk of eviction. Hispanic and Black renters experience eviction at higher rates than white renters. Evictions have been correlated with intensified poverty conditions, declining credit scores, lower earnings in adulthood, and lower life expectancy. Displacement by green gentrification prevents residents of color from benefiting from the improved environmental and infrastructural conditions. White residents, who are overrepresented in green urban spaces, are often the only ones who experience their benefits. Environmental gentrification can alter a city’s makeup and lifestyle through changing demographics and declining racial diversity. 

    Possible Policies and Solutions

    Some city planners and administrations advocate for legislation that restricts developers and landlords from dramatically increasing housing costs following urban renewal projects. On the other hand, others argue to allow more unrestricted development to avoid interfering with local economies and potentially stunting economic growth. 

    The “Just Green Enough” plan attempts to achieve environmental remediation while avoiding gentrification by revitalizing urban space with smaller projects. In this way, the development is “just enough” to cultivate the benefits of sustainability and green space while still prioritizing the community’s needs and avoiding displacement. These projects include building smaller parks coupled with affordable housing. This politically moderate solution does not deter the development of urban green spaces, but does try to adjust it to avoid the possibility of displacement. However, there is evidence that suggests it is just as likely for property values to rise in neighborhoods in close proximity to small-scale projects as larger ones, indicating that this solution may not be as effective at discouraging gentrification, which is a challenge in and of itself. 

    One alternative is a Community Land Trust (CLT)–community owned land which regulates housing prices and keeps them affordable for long periods of time. This housing is only sold to low-income families, who receive a modest return on their investment due to their “shared equity.” Philadelphia created a CLT in 2010 to combat growing housing prices in the city, and manages 36 rent-to-own townhomes with plans to build 75 more.

    The most recent federal legislation pertaining to green gentrification was the Opportunities Zones (OZ) Act (2017). This act allows investors to receive tax benefits for developing ZIP codes that governors within each state have identified as needing investment. To qualify as an OZ, the area must have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent. While it promotes investment in struggling areas, the act does not include anti- displacement measures.

  • What are Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Programs?

    What are Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Programs?

    [ Map depicting the status of regional, national and subnational carbon pricing initiatives. Image courtesy of Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.]

    Introduction

    In response to the impending threat of climate change, governments have begun to explore options for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. One of these options is an emissions trading program called cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade programs are market-based regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. They contain two main features. The first is a “cap” set by government regulators that establishes the maximum level of emissions and becomes more strict over time. The second main feature is the allocation of emission allowances to emitters through tradable permits, which allows individual emitters to buy and sell allowances in order to comply with emissions caps. Cap-and-trade programs incentivize firms to operate below their emissions cap, because excess allowances can be sold at a profit to other emitters.  These policies also add a layer of enforceability and accountability to corporate environmental protection.    

    Cap-and-Trade Programs in the US

    Although there is no national cap-and-trade program in the US today, there are several state-level and interstate programs worth noting. Support for cap-and-trade programs is highest in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, which are the only regions of the country where emissions trading systems have been implemented.

    The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the first US program, was established in 2005 and is now active in eleven states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. The RGGI has gradually attracted more states to become signatories and has been effective in reducing emissions and generating state revenue. Between 2006 and 2018, the RGGI led to a 48% decrease in emissions among plants that were under regulation. From 2009–2017, the initiative generated $4.7 billion of state revenue from allowance auctions.

    Three states have their own cap-and-trade programs. California was the first state to implement an emissions trading system in 2012. The program enforces caps on approximately 85% of greenhouse gas emissions in the state. So far, decreases in emissions have been on track with the program’s climate goals, and both enforcement and compliance have been strong, with 100% of companies meeting compliance requirements. In 2021, Washington State passed the Climate Commitment Act which includes a “cap-and-invest” program among other features. “Cap and invest” programs extend upon cap-and-trades by allocating proceeds made by permit auctions to finance other climate resiliency projects. Most recently, Oregon adopted the Climate Protection Program in 2021 that included cap-and-trade measures upon fuel suppliers as part of an executive order by the Governor.  

    Cap-and-Trades in Other OECD Nations 

    Other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have also adopted cap-and-trade policies. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a unique case of a multi-national program that encompasses both EU States as well as some other European countries. This system covers around 41% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU including those from power plants, energy-intensive industries, and civil aviation. Other individual countries that have implemented cap-and-trade policies are Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Quebec and some cities and provinces in China while the country works towards a national standard.

    Arguments For Cap-and-Trade

    When designed with proper monitoring and enforcement measures, cap-and-trade programs have proven to be environmentally and cost effective. While cap-and-trades largely focus on carbon emissions today, prior initiatives have focused on other pollutants. For example, many proponents point to the success of the United States’ Acid Rain Program in the 1990s, which targeted sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to acid rain. This program exceeded expectations in decreasing acid rain and met its targets years ahead of the original timeline. Because of these measures, the impact of acid rain in the US is far less than it had been in the late 1900’s.

    One main feature of cap-and-trade programs that draws support is their market-based nature. This means that the carbon being traded creates a new market, where the price of carbon is determined by principles of supply and demand. Research indicates market-based regulatory options are more cost-effective than traditional regulations such as fuel regulation or fuel economy requirements. This is because market-based approaches allow individual actors the flexibility to find the most-cost effective ways to cut emissions and implement the cheapest abatement options first. 

    Supporters of cap-and-trade programs also stress that well-implemented programs are economically stimulating. Proponents argue caps on emissions can create a positive economic shock by spurring investment in green energy technologies and conservation measures. Additionally, supporters argue these policies promote the creation of new energy efficiency programs which generate jobs. It is also argued that revenue generated from auctioning carbon allowances can be directed toward investments for other green projects, including renewable energy production, conservation projects, and more energy-efficiency undertakings.

    Arguments Against Cap-and-Trade

    Many arguments against the implementation of emissions trading programs focus on the economic well-being of consumers. Critics argue that cap-and-trade programs damage the economy by raising energy prices, which would create a tax on energy consumption that falls on consumers as companies shift this burden onto customers instead of absorbing the costs themselves. In effect, this would burden low-income households and lead companies to outsource manufacturing, which would harm American jobs and increase unemployment. Opponents also point to previous examples of firms avoiding the cost of cap-and-trade programs. For example, the 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill sought to initiate the US’s transition into a more green economy with cap-and-trade programs, but it was met with high levels of corporate disapproval. In response, lawmakers included “handouts” to industry groups in the bill in an effort to generate enough support for the bill’s passage.

    Opponents cite concerns over energy security (oil acquisition) in the US and a future of dependence on foreign nations. In the US, cap-and-trades will limit domestic oil production even though there are high levels of extractable resources. They argue that this will lead to a heavier reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East.

    Critics also assert that the design of cap-and-trade programs can be problematic. They cite past issues of cap-and-trade initiatives, like those associated with the European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS) or Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The EU ETS initially over-allocated emissions permits and set a very weak cap, rendering it ineffective until this was fixed. The RGGI initially taxed emissions without effectively reducing them overall. It is argued that these failures were due to weak design provisions, such as frequently fluctuating carbon prices and vague, over-allocated, and flexible emissions caps. 

    Emissions leakage is a challenge that affects many cap-and-trade programs. Leakage occurs when emission reductions in one jurisdiction are accompanied by increased emissions in other regions with fewer rules, as emitters search for ways to avoid regulation. Critics point to emissions leakage as evidence of design flaws that require additional cooperation to address.

  • Carbon Pricing Explained

    Carbon Pricing Explained

    Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas released during the combustion of fossil fuels. As the Sun’s radiation hits Earth’s surface and warms it, much of it is re-radiated back into space as heat. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat in the atmosphere, preventing it from leaching into space. This is called the greenhouse effect, and it causes Earth’s temperature to rise. While some other gasses have greater warming potential than carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is released the most as a byproduct of human activity, accounting for 79% of U.S. emissions in 2020. 

    As the most prevalent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is often the focus of policies to cut emissions, and as such is being incorporated into the economic system. Treating carbon as a financial cost is seen as one method of restructuring the global economy to rely less on burning fossil fuels and seek lower cost alternatives, namely renewables that do not emit greenhouse gasses.

    Key Terms

    • Social cost of carbon: The present value in dollars of the future damage caused by each unit of carbon emissions, calculated using models that project population and economic growth, as well as disasters and health impacts from climate change, over several hundred years  — currently estimated by the U.S. government to be $51/ton of CO2
    • Carbon pricing: A method of quantifying costs paid by the public for carbon emissions — in the form of damages to property and health caused by rapid climate change — and assigning a dollar value to each unit of carbon emitted.
    • Carbon tax: Money collected by a government per quantity of carbon emitted.
    • Emissions Trading System (cap-and-trade): Limits total carbon emissions to a set level, and allows emitters to buy and sell emissions credits with each other where the total amount of credits in circulation equals the set limit.

    Social Cost of Carbon

    Carbon emissions can be assigned a price because they have costs that can be quantified. Climate change due to increased carbon dioxide emissions has a wide range of impacts, including extreme weather events, droughts, damage to structures, and injury or death related to heat, flooding, storms, and increased spread of tropical diseases. These impacts can be translated into dollar value costs, which are factored into the complex economic models used to price carbon. The modeling arrives at a dollar value that can be used to assess carbon-emitting actions: the social cost of carbon.

    Due to the complexity—and ultimately the impossibility—of calculating an exact cost per unit of carbon, estimates vary widely. One meta-analysis finds social costs of carbon estimates ranging from -$50 to $8752/ton of CO2. Across U.S. federal agencies, the social cost of carbon currently used is near the lower end of estimates at $51/ton of CO2. Notably, this number is a reinstatement of a 2017 calculation by the federal Interagency Working Group (IWG), which stated in its report that this is an underestimate that does not reflect more recent scientific developments. For example, New York State estimates the cost at $125/ton. The IWG is currently working to reassess the social cost of carbon.

    If an exact social cost of carbon cannot be determined, then what is its use? Its purpose is to provide a tool for estimating the damages associated with carbon emissions, and to give a reference point for potential carbon taxes or Emissions Trading Systems (ETS). Nations can ultimately calculate a cost of carbon informed by their own values—deciding the “cost” of losing lives due to climate induced disasters becomes more of a value judgment than a simple, quantifiable metric.

    The social cost of carbon is not without controversy in U.S. politics, with conservatives often questioning its use and liberals being in favor of using it more often. The Obama administration was the first to implement a social cost of carbon at $51/ton, which was then devalued to $1-$7/ton by the Trump administration, in addition to disbanding the IWG. The Biden administration has restored the IWG and its past estimate, however a recent legal campaign by Republican-led states sought to block the Biden administration from reinstating the $51/ton metric from the Obama era, but failed in the Supreme Court.

    Carbon Pricing Policies

    Many governments have chosen to implement policies that enact carbon pricing that seek to lower emissions by making them expensive. In other words this uses the market to incentivize companies to stop emitting, as opposed to simply mandating emissions to be reduced. By assigning a cost paid for carbon emissions, policymakers hope that companies will try to reduce their carbon footprint as a means to cut costs and maximize profits. The two main policy mechanisms deployed are carbon taxes and ETS.

    • Carbon Taxes: Carbon taxes are a method of pricing carbon and making emitters pay for it by assigning a value to each ton of carbon emitted, and collecting taxes based on this value, multiplied by total emissions. Companies are given the choice of paying for their emissions or avoiding the tax by reducing emissions, and the underlying logic is that a more expensive tax will result in more emissions reductions.
    • Emissions Trading Systems (ETS): Emissions trading systems, also called cap-and-trade programs, are an alternative way of making emitters pay for carbon by setting a limit on cumulative emissions (a cap) and allowing companies to trade emissions allowances with each other, where the total value of all allowances in circulation is equal to the total carbon limit set by the government. This is different from a carbon tax in that carbon taxes do not set a limit, they merely make emitters pay a flat rate per unit of carbon. These systems allow for a more flexible market-based approach, as heavier emitters can buy allowances from less polluting industries and decide whether it is more cost effective to pay for allowances or simply decrease their emissions. ETS where the government gives away allowances for free also especially rewards companies that can lower emissions, because they can sell their allocated allowances to other companies and earn money. A few other key elements of such a system include heavy fines for exceeding allotted emissions, to make it more viable to pay for additional allowances or reduce emissions, and distributing allowances directly (giving them to industries based on their projected emission requirements) or through auctions that let companies bid for allowances as they see fit. 

    Carbon Pricing Debates

    Even when all parties agree that climate change is a serious issue, there are disagreements over the implementation of solutions, including pricing carbon to reduce emissions.

    Those in favor of implementing carbon pricing claim that it is the most effective way of quickly reducing carbon emissions which is a necessary action to prevent catastrophic planetary warming. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund both support it as a market based strategy to meet emissions reduction targets. Proponents also estimate that a government imposed price on carbon would generate significant revenues for the government, enough to cover the costs of implementing carbon prices. The Tax Foundation projects that a carbon tax of $50/metric ton at an annual growth rate of 5% would generate $1.87 trillion over ten years. They explain that the economic impacts depend on how the tax revenue is spent; if the excess revenue is distributed to workers through tax cuts or direct rebates, it can offset the inherent regressiveness of a carbon tax. 

    A drawback of carbon pricing, and a major barrier to its implementation, is that a rise in fossil fuel prices negatively affects the economy. The UK’s National Institute for Economic and Social Research calculates that an abrupt implementation of a carbon tax set at $100/ton would raise inflation and lower Gross Domestic Product by 1-2% across most Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The inherent problem is that most economies still rely heavily on fossil fuels, so raising the cost of carbon emissions drives up prices across all sectors. This can affect the poorest citizens the most, and the poorest countries as well, where fossil fuels are essential for light, heat, and transportation. Fears over economy-wide price increases are why carbon taxes are generally politically toxic, despite economists claims that they are the most effective measure for reducing emissions.

    Another issue commonly discussed with carbon pricing schemes, and most climate change plans for that matter, is that they rely on international cooperation to be successful. If one country implements carbon pricing, industrial practices may shift to other countries with no carbon pricing, leading to no change in net emissions—a phenomenon known as carbon leakage. For this reason, one of the major policies discussed by global institutions like the IMF has been an international carbon price floor, which would set minimum carbon prices globally and require the involvement of most countries to be effective. Another potential solution being tested in the European Union is deploying a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, that aims to charge equivalent fees on carbon emissions for all goods, including imports, once factoring in any potential carbon emissions paid for in countries of origin.

    As it stands, carbon pricing schemes have not been implemented at the international level, but many countries have some form of carbon price. As of 2022, carbon pricing covers 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions according to a report by the World Bank. Global carbon pricing revenue in 2021 was $84 billion.

    State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022, World Bank 

  • Solar Energy in the United States

    Solar Energy in the United States

    Solar power in the United States has a lengthy history—the first U.S. patents for solar cells were filed in the 1880s, and the first commercially viable solar cell was produced by Bell Labs in 1954. Despite being around for nearly 150 years, solar energy has remained a fringe source of power generation in the United States due to its historically high costs and lower efficiency compared to fossil fuels. Today, solar power accounts for around 3% of U.S. electricity, or enough to power 18 million average family homes. This represents rapid growth in solar power of roughly 4,000% over the last decade.

    This growth in the United States, and around the world, is largely due to a decrease in the cost of solar power systems. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports, “since 2010, there has been a 64%, 69%, and 82% reduction in the cost of residential, commercial-rooftop, and utility-scale PV systems, respectively.” According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, solar and wind energy are now cheaper than the lowest cost fossil fuel option 62% of the time.

    Cumulative U.S. Solar Installations (2007-Q1 2022), Solar Energy Industries Association

    Solar Energy Policies in the United States

    The U.S. federal government first supported solar energy in 1974, when Congress passed the Solar Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act. Over the next decades, the government continued to support the development and use of solar energy by funding research, and providing tax incentives to those who used solar systems. The Solar Investment Tax Credit, passed by Congress in 2006, allows private individuals and businesses to write off 30% of the cost of installing a new solar system on their federal taxes. In 2020, the tax credit was extended by Congress through 2023, however the rate was lowered to 26%.

    President Biden has made addressing climate change a priority, aiming to ramp up solar energy in the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions. To work towards this transition, the Biden administration has deployed a range of policies designed to cut costs and increase adoption of solar technology. Biden used the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law giving the president the power to order companies to supply critical goods and services, to expand American manufacturing of solar panels for power generation. The administration implemented several other policies including lowering fees for solar projects on public lands by 50%, temporarily eliminating tariffs on solar panel materials from specific countries, and removing bureaucratic hurdles to implementing clean energy projects at a local level.

    The Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Futures Study, released in 2021, outlines how solar energy could play a role in decarbonizing the United States’ power grid, supplying as much as 40% of the nation’s electricity by 2035. In 2020, 15 gigawatts (GW) of solar power were added to the U.S. energy system, and the study calculates that this would need to increase to an average of 30 GW added per year from 2020-2025 and 60 GW per year added from 2025-2030 to achieve its 40% projection.

    States have also developed incentives for solar energy projects. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center provides an overview of these policies in each state.

    Challenges to Solar Energy Implementation

    Grid Modernization

    To connect more solar power to the U.S. electricity grid, major investments would be required to modernize old infrastructure that is already struggling due to climate change. The grid would need to be modernized to be compatible with a modern array of solar power (and other renewables, namely wind energy). A renewable-based grid would have to withstand even greater demand for electricity than the current grid. Plans to decarbonize the transportation and heating sectors, as well as industry, would mean a greater demand on a renewable grid. Due in part to this, U.S. electricity demand is projected to grow approximately 30% by 2050.

    Overall, consultancy firm Marsh & McLennan estimates the cost to fully update the nation’s aging power grid at $1 trillion by 2050. According to Reuters, part of these costs would likely be passed on to consumers through utility rate increases.

    Production vs. Use

    According to the California Independent System Operator, a non-profit utilities provider in California, solar power faces another difficulty arising from the mismatch between when solar power is generated and when people use the most energy. Solar power generation follows the sun, and peaks during midday. Energy use tends to ramp up in the morning as people wake up, peaks during midday as businesses are operating, and remains constant through the evening before dropping as people go to sleep. Around sunset, there is extremely high demand for energy as more lights are turned on and people are cooking dinner, which is problematic for a solar-based grid that can no longer actively generate power.

    Potential solutions to managing this disconnect are being studied. One strategy is to use diverse sources of energy, like wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear, to compensate for each other’s weaknesses. In addition, boosting storage capacity for electricity generated from the sun via better batteries could enable distribution of that energy outside of production hours. This is why the DOE finds that expanding solar energy storage capacity is vital if the U.S. is to implement more solar energy in the nation’s power grid.

    Supporters of Using More Solar Energy

    Solar energy in the U.S. is primarily seen as a means of reducing emissions from the U.S. energy sector, and eventually transitioning the entire country to be a net-zero emitter. Supporters of solar argue that lowering emissions will work towards mitigating the effects of rapid climate change and reducing pollution fossil fuels, which is known to contribute to illness and increased mortality.

    In addition, supporters note that the long run costs of renewable plants are lower than fossil fuel plants. Solar energy systems, once installed, are easy to run because they draw on the limitless and free supply of energy coming from the sun. Comparatively, fossil fuel plants are expensive to operate and require expensive fuels, which must constantly be sourced and extracted. Because of this, it is estimated that switching to a more renewable-based grid would help U.S. consumers save money in the long run through lower energy costs.

    Supporters also argue that diversifying sources of energy production boosts power grid resilience. A report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that having diverse sources of energy shields consumers from price volatility, diminishes the likelihood of major power outages, and makes the grid less vulnerable to attacks or natural disasters.

    Proponents of solar energy also suggest it would be a boon for the economy through job creation and private investment. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) reports that roughly 10,000 solar companies employ 230,000 Americans, which generated $33 billion in private investment in 2021. It also finds that meeting the 40% solar by 2035 goal laid out by the DOE would create an additional 670,000 jobs.

    Opponents of Using More Solar Energy

    One major concern with expanding solar energy usage is the mining of materials involved in solar panel production. Solar panel manufacturing requires many different metals, and the higher demand for batteries to store captured solar energy drives mining of metals required for lithium-ion batteries. Mining can cause the destruction of habitats, environmental pollution, and biodiversity loss. It also affects communities near mining operations, which typically take place in developing countries, imposing health costs due to the release of toxic materials. Moreover, some of the metals contained in solar panels such as cadmium, lead, and arsenic can be harmful to environmental and human health, leading some solar panels to be classified as toxic waste when discarded.

    There are also concerns over land use. Solar farms take up considerably more space than power plants of equivalent electrical output. It is estimated that at current efficiency levels, solar panels would require 10 million acres, or 0.4% of the nation’s surface area, to completely power the U.S. Land clearing for the construction of solar farms, as with any human development, can be detrimental to wildlife, soil, and water sources. These arguments, as well as negative views on the aesthetics of large solar installations, are posed by residents of some rural desert communities that live near planned solar development sites. In California, Utah, and Nevada, opposition made up of concerned residents and conservation groups have pushed back on some large-scale solar infrastructure projects.

    Finally, many private utility and energy companies are opposed to solar energy, as it can present a threat to their business models. Private utility companies typically profit from their own capital investments and (in some markets) electricity sold, so cheap solar energy projects that can provide potentially off-grid power generation via rooftop solar are viewed as an acute risk. In 2021, a national network of utility interest groups and fossil fuel think tanks offered funding and consultancy services to utility companies seeking to block solar energy implementation in their home states.

  • How will the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Address Climate Change?

    How will the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Address Climate Change?

    Background Information on Greenhouse Gasses

    Greenhouse gasses (GHG) can be emitted through natural processes and human activities. When looking at GHG emissions, CO2 is often tracked because it accounts for the largest portion of GHGs that are emitted from human activities. In 2020, 79% of all GHGs emitted by human activity in the U.S. was CO2.  Fossil fuels are burned for energy production and emit CO2 in the process. Fossil fuel combustion for energy resulted in 73% of the total U.S. GHG emissions and 92% of total CO2 emissions in 2020. Because of this, energy production and climate change are interrelated, and legislation on energy is one way to understand the actions the U.S. has taken to address climate change. 

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and Environmental Policy

    In November of 2020, Congress passed the Biden administration’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal which includes multiple provisions to address environmental justice and climate change. The bill invests in public transit and passenger rail, remove lead pipes, increase internet access, fix roads and bridges, upgrade airports and seaports, upgrade current power infrastructure, create a network of electric car charging stations, focus on environmental remediation, and build infrastructure resilient to extreme weather events. It also contains the following components:

    • Upgrade power infrastructure by investing in clean energy transmission and the electric grid, with the goal of phasing out industries that are high emitters of GHGs, like coal. 
    • Decrease GHG emissions by creating a network of electric car charging stations to expand electric vehicle usability and accessibility.
    • Focus on environmental remediation which is the removal of contaminants that cause environmental damage and health risks. It will do this by cleaning up superfund and brownfield sites (which are contaminated hazardous waste sites), reclaiming abandoned mines, and capping orphaned oil and gas wells. 
    • Build infrastructure resilient to extreme weather events by focusing on the weatherization of homes and buildings. This is a proactive response to climate change because as climate change progresses, extreme weather events are predicted to become more frequent and intense, which could bring more infrastructure damage unless buildings are more prepared.

    Public opinion on the different aspects of the bill varies. The below survey done by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago shows the degree of public support for each facet of the bill. 

    What Should be Part of the Infrastructure Package?, National Opinion Research Center

    Supporters of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

    Supporters of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal believe upgrading the current power infrastructure will reduce GHG emissions and help the U.S. to be more environmentally sustainable.

    Supporters also note the potential for decreased GHG emissions with the introduction of more electric car charging stations, as the increased accessibility may influence people to convert from gas-powered cars to electric ones. Many car companies including Ford, GM, and Jaguar have all pledged to turn their fleets 100% electric or decrease their GHG emissions substantially in the coming years, and even the ride share service, Uber, is offering “Uber Green”, where users may opt to use electric vehicles. Supporters argue that planning ahead by installing electric car infrastructure now will ready the economy for the large expected increase in electric vehicles in the next several years. 

    Others see the bipartisan infrastructure deal as a positive step in working towards a clean energy future, and the bill’s efforts to address climate change are seen by some as an investment in America’s future. They believe new industry and infrastructure development will generate jobs, including construction on public transit, weatherization projects, budget experts overseeing project implementation, conservationists assisting in remediation, and environmental engineers. Additionally, supporters believe these projects could also create jobs indirectly, as they will require large amounts of supplies, and thus support raw materials manufacturers.

    After COP26, the most recent annual United Nations climate change conference, 154 countries put forward new climate action plans to cut their emissions. Supporters feel that by completing the goals of the infrastructure deal, the U.S. would be following the goals of other nations in working towards clean energy, not coal based energy, and following the global standard to reduce GHG emissions. 

    Opponents of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

    Past administrations have proposed expensive infrastructure deals that have either not been successful, or not passed through Congress, so some question whether this bill will complete what it sets out to do. There is also concern over the cost of the bill. 

    In 1998, the Clinton administration created a $217 billion infrastructure bill focusing on highways and transit. In 2005, the Bush administration created a $286 billion transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, that received negative feedback because people felt that the repaired infrastructure was not a priority. In 2009, the Obama administration created the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cost $831 billion but did not complete the infrastructure goals it initially laid out. Under the Trump administration, four infrastructure deals were proposed but not passed due to concerns over the cost.

    Others feel that the goal to limit GHG emissions and address climate change will only have a negligible impact on global warming. They believe the focus on limiting emissions drastically through a bill like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is not where money should be focused. This perspective is shared by those who feel that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will not do enough to reach the new emissions reduction goals set by the Biden Administration.

  • Fossil Fuel Subsidies Explained

    Fossil Fuel Subsidies Explained

    As the global economy rebounded from the COVID-19 recession in 2021, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions hit their highest-ever recorded levels. Since CO2 is the primary gas involved in human-induced climate change, this will likely continue to accelerate the catastrophic effects of planetary warming. Hand-in-hand with this rise in fossil fuel use was a resurgence of fossil fuel subsidies—demonstrating the link between the subsidies and fuel use. Combined, subsidies on fossil fuels totaled $440 billion in 2021. Fossil fuel subsidies encourage burning fossil fuels by decreasing the cost of consumption, so they are widely recognized as a barrier to shifting to renewable energy.

    What are Fossil Fuel Subsidies? 

    A subsidy is when a government pays a private entity, directly or indirectly, to further a broader public goal. 

    • Direct subsidies are a straightforward transfer of money from a government to a private entity. 
    • Indirect subsidies decrease the cost of fossil fuels without direct payments; they can take the form of tax breaks or favorable loans.

    Fossil fuel subsidies are any policy by a government that directly or indirectly pays for the costs of producing or using fossil fuels. This lowers the operating costs for fossil fuel companies and keeps fossil fuels cheaper than their “true” cost for consumers, which would otherwise be set by global markets. Because fuel is cheaper than it would be without subsidies, there is greater use of fossil fuels.

    Fossil fuel subsidies can be further classified into two categories: production subsidies and consumption subsidies. 

    • Production subsidies are those that target the producers of fossil fuels; they can include government funding or support for accessing fossil fuel reserves, extracting resources, and building industrial facilities. They are common in wealthy nations that produce oil. 
    • Consumption subsidies, on the other hand, target individuals and enterprises that purchase fossil fuels or electricity derived from it. Common examples include capping gas prices or helping pay for energy bills. These are common in developing nations where large populations require cheap fuel for cooking, heating, and transportation. 

    Fossil fuel subsidization gets more complex, as many wealthy countries with large fossil fuel industries will subsidize the development of infrastructure in developing nations to better extract fossil fuels.

    Most economies still largely depend on fossil fuels, so for many governments it makes sense to keep their prices low. Rising costs of gas make it more expensive to travel, work, and power homes, which can negatively impact people’s finances and economic opportunity. Because fossil fuels are so widely used, subsidies on their production and consumption are found in practically every country. Global subsidies currently cost $440 billion, which fluctuates year to year based on individual countries’ policies.

    Fossil fuel subsidies by country in 2019, reflecting pre-pandemic levels of demand. Subsidies in general fell sharply in 2020 and rebounded in 2021.

    Why are Fossil Fuel Subsidies Considered Harmful?

    The main issue associated with fossil fuel subsidies is climate change. Because subsidies make it artificially cheap to produce and buy fossil fuels, they encourage greater use, which leads to increased emissions. Rapid climate change is a serious problem that is believed to cause more severe weather patterns, increased drought, sea level rise, crop failures, and displacement of people; these effects are projected to worsen as temperatures continue to rise at an unnaturally fast rate. 

    In addition, by encouraging the burning of more fossil fuels these subsidies also contribute to air pollution, a major known cause of human illness and death. Research from Harvard and the UK attributes 1 in 5 air pollution deaths worldwide to fossil fuels, or 1.6 million of the 8 million people killed in 2018. 

    A more indirect argument put forth by some is that fossil fuel subsidies are not the most efficient use of government money for maximizing social welfare—that is, the billions poured into making fossil fuels cheaper could be better spent in areas like healthcare, education, or even renewable energy. The United Nations notes that more is being spent on fossil fuel subsidies than poverty elimination, and calls for reallocating funds towards more sustainable projects.

    Why are Fossil Fuel Subsidies Considered Necessary?

    Proponents of fossil fuel subsidies and cautious governments argue that the solution is not as simple as getting rid of them overnight. Fossil fuel subsidies make energy more affordable for many people across the world, particularly in countries with high levels of poverty. Removing them might push some people further into poverty by driving up the cost of living. Because entire economies run on burning fossil fuels for energy, a spike in energy costs when subsidies are dropped could trigger inflation or recession. When gas prices go up, the price of everything else tends to rise as well, because it becomes more expensive for businesses to move goods around and to manufacture products. Removing subsidies quickly can cause a price shock because economies are adjusted to run on artificially low gas prices. An extreme example of this is Kazakhstan, where the removal of consumption subsidies on fuel proved to be the catalyst for violent uprisings after the cost of fuel rose sharply. In general emerging economies are more vulnerable to inflation and economic turmoil, which can be triggered by spikes in the prices of essential commodities like oil and gas. 

    The most staunch defenders of subsidies are fossil fuel companies themselves, which are able to use their vast wealth and connections to stall government action. For example, over 100 fossil fuel companies sent a combined 500 lobbyists to COP26, the international climate change summit held in 2021, more representatives than any nation present.

    Current Action by World Governments

    Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually by governments subsidizing fossil fuels, there has been general acknowledgement that fossil fuel subsidies present a problem for the climate, and many countries have pledged to work towards eliminating them where possible. Every year since 2009, the G7 and G20 nations (groups of leading economies composed of 7 and 20 members, respectively) have committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The Glasgow Climate Pact, signed in 2021 after the COP26 conference, calls upon all signatories to “phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” as part of the plan to limit warming to 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels. The UN General Assembly also lists phasing out harmful fossil fuel subsidies as a step towards achieving “sustainable consumption and production patterns”. Despite these pledges, fossil fuel subsidies remain widespread, and their recent resurgence in 2021 from the low levels seen during COVID lockdowns indicates that the debate over how to address these subsidies is ongoing.

  • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction in the U.S

    Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction in the U.S

    Background Information

    GHGs are gasses which form Earth’s atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), among others. GHGs keep the Earth warm by taking in heat and keeping it from exiting into space. When concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are too high, too much heat can be trapped, which has been linked to hotter temperatures, more severe storms, increased drought, rising sea levels, species loss, changes to agriculture, forced displacement, and poverty. As a result, regulating GHGs is a key component of climate change policies. 

    Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in 2020, EPA

    GHGs can be emitted by different activities including naturally through plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter, as well as through human activities. Transportation emits GHGs through burning fossil fuels for cars, ships, trains, and planes, and about 60% of electricity in the U.S. as of 2020, comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Industries also contribute to GHG emissions by burning fossil fuels for energy and from chemical reactions producing raw materials. Commercial and residential emissions of GHGs come from businesses and homes burning fossil fuels for heat, handling waste, and using products and electricity that emit GHGs during production. Lastly, agriculture emits GHGs from livestock, soils, and farm equipment. 

    The United States and GHG Emissions

    In 2016, the Obama administration joined the Paris Agreement, an international treaty adopted to phase out fossil fuels and transition the global economy to clean energy. According to the United Nations, “the goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.” A poll conducted by Pew Research Center determined that  48% of U.S. adults at the time believed the Earth was warming mostly from human activities. The Obama administration made it the U.S. goal to decrease GHG emissions by 26-28% by 2025.

    U.S. Emissions Under 2020 and 2025 Targets, UNFCCC

    In 2017, the Trump administration left the Paris Agreement due to concerns over the economic impact. The President cited a 2017 National Economic Research Associates (NERA) report which stated attaining the Paris Agreement’s goals would lead to 2.7 million job losses by 2025. 

    In 2019, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey reignited American interest in climate change with the introduction of the Green New Deal resolution in the House and Senate. The Select Committee on Climate Crisis was formed in the House, and the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus was formed in the Senate.

    The Biden Administration reentered the Paris Agreement in 2021. According to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, 75% of U.S. adults are in support of U.S. participation in international climate change efforts. The Biden administration also established a new set of GHG emission targets. The new targets are:

    1. Reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030
    2. Reaching 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035
    3. Achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050
    4. Delivering 40% of the benefits from federal investments in climate and clean energy to disadvantaged communities

    These new targets aim to more drastically decrease U.S. emissions than previous administrations by focusing on using more electric vehicles, negating GHG emissions from human activity, and assisting Americans most affected by climate change. 

    Additionally, the Biden administration formed the National Climate Task Force in order to tackle climate change, create union jobs, and focus on environmental justice. In late April of 2022, the National Climate Task Force hosted a climate summit to revisit carbon emissions targets which led the US government to revise and strengthen the current climate agenda.

    Supporters of Regulating GHG Emissions

    Many support the new targets because they believe the targets will lead to bold action, which will better ensure clean air and water, introduction of greener technologies, and health in American communities. 

    Others support the new targets because they think it is the U.S.’s responsibility to enact strong GHG targets as one of the highest per capita CO2 emitters and the second highest total CO2 emitting country, surpassed only by China. Supporters of the new target believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. to pave the way in GHG reduction, and that these goals could ultimately influence other countries to do the same. Additionally, supporters think this would allow the U.S. to match the ambitious goals of countries within the EU that are more aggressive than the 50% target set by Biden.

    Annual CO2 Emissions Comparing the World, China, and the United States, Our World in Data

    Some support the targets because they believe it will fuel the economy and prioritize workers by creating middle class union jobs laying transmission lines for a clean grid, capping leaking mines, and building electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. They also contend that the new jobs could be filled by people moving from the coal industry into these greener industries. 

    Opponents to Stronger Regulations of GHG Emissions

    Some opponents believe the transition from industries, such as coal, to greener energy production will not increase jobs. Instead, they are concerned that workers in high pollution and nonrenewable industries will lose their jobs as those industries are phased out. While some argue that these workers can shift to clean energy sector jobs, others feel the people who are expected to switch industries do not have transferable skills.

    Others caution against what they view as a rapid change to the economy when the effects of climate change are still up for debate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report laid out a series of potential outcomes, with the most extreme options being the least likely to occur. They assert that scientific understanding of climate change is still growing and improving, so the results of the models used to predict the effects of climate change should not be relied on immediately because the technology is still being perfected. 

    Others believe these targets still are not enough. They believe the global average temperature will still exceed the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal articulated in the Paris Agreement. A 2021 peer reviewed article published in Nature Climate Change states that the best estimates of global average temperature increase under the new regulations are 2-2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100, possibly still within the maximum increase of 2 degrees Celsius outlined in the Paris Agreement.

    Other bills are being enacted and passed which may impact U.S. GHG emissions. These include the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and the Build Back Better Act, which both have provisions regarding GHGs. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal has been enacted and notices of funding opportunities, requests for information, and funding applications are beginning to open up. The Build Back Better Act is waiting to be passed through the Senate but there are conversations about a bipartisan reconciliation agreement. Additionally, the recent Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, which limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate carbon emissions. This decision and its impacts will be important to follow as government agencies’ and branches’ roles in regulating GHG emissions are redefined.

  • Introduction to Climate Migration

    Introduction to Climate Migration

    In 2019 alone, 2,000 natural disasters displaced roughly 24.9 million people worldwide. By 2050, 150 to 200 million people will likely be displaced as a result of “climate shocks” – extreme weather events caused by climate change that impact the durability and sustainability of communities. While most displaced populations will migrate within their home country, the number of international migrants is projected to increase as climate change tests countries’ resiliency through the duration of the 21st century. 

    Sea level rise as a result of global temperature increase poses an extreme risk of flooding to those living in low-altitude and coastal areas. In Bangladesh, one of a handful of countries that have already begun to experience climate migration, the poorest citizens tend to live in the low-lying coastal zones that are most impacted by flooding. Bangladesh’s susceptibility to drought, clean water shortages, cyclones, floods, and coastal and delta erosion cause an estimated 500,000 people to migrate to urban areas every year. The vast majority of internal migrants arrive in Dhaka, Gazipur, and Narayanganj, causing these cities to reach abnormally high population densities, decreasing living standards. Cities like these have a limited capacity for providing clean water, shelter, and employment to hundreds of thousands of climate migrants fleeing the flooded coasts.

    Climate processes such as water scarcity, sea level rise, drought, salinization, and eutrophication (leaching of chemicals into water sources) are major causes of forced migration. Climate processes involve years of shifting environments, but climate events like flooding, storms, and wildfires, can degrade entire habitats in a matter of days and impact entire populations for decades. Physical barriers such as seawalls, levees, and dams provide temporary relief, but implementing long-term solutions to climate change is the only way to subdue forced climate migration. Many countries’ governments, however, do not recognize these climate processes as being directly related to climate change, which limits their willingness and ability to implement long-term solutions.

    The existence of climate change is undisputed by 97% of the scientific community, but its effects on the human population are still argued. Complexities at the intersection between climate change, conflict, and displacement allow for debate over whether climate migration is a solution or a problem itself. Some scientists have referred to climate migration as an “adaptation strategy” because it presents itself as a temporary solution to habitat change and destruction. Others argue that as climate change affects the availability of natural resources like drinkable water, climate migrants will arrive in urban areas that do not have the means to provide for the increase in population. 

    Historically, climate migration has largely taken place internally, leading to the prioritization of national protocols. Nations will be forced to address climate migration domestically as well as internationally. Bangladesh has put in place a Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF), which allocates $70 million (USD) to fund government projects that will mitigate the adverse effects of internal climate migration as well as prevent communities from reaching the point of forced migration. Future projections of displaced people led the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2011 to determine that an expected influx of immigrants to the U.S was a result of water scarcity and consequential conflicts resulting from resource depletion. Migration conditions resulting from climate shocks and processes have exacerbated conflict and instability in countries, resulting in more severe political and humanitarian issues. 

    Resiliency plans are one of the key steps in addressing climate migration. One proposed strategy is to limit the climate change drivers that are pushing populations out of their homes, namely greenhouse gas emissions. However, both financial constraints and the time it takes for governments to implement strategies that could potentially reduce emissions and slow the process of climate change are major limitations, and many scientists believe that time is running out. A possible solution would be to instead focus funding on facilitating climate migration. Studies show that planned climate migration leads households to become more resilient in the face of climate shocks, whereas forced and sudden climate migration tends to lead to household vulnerability. Bangladesh’s CCTF plan works by providing the resources for households to understand their local risk of climate shocks, as well as by creating avenues that assist in planning migration ahead of time. This strategy may significantly reduce the need for emergency migration and post-disaster relief efforts. 

    Climate change disproportionately impacts countries and communities, which are historically marginalized, including non-industrial states which are the least responsible for the changing environment. Unfortunately, addressing the issue of forced migration does not tackle concerns over resource scarcity, which these disadvantaged countries will likely suffer from the most. Confronting the challenges associated with climate change and climate migration will require more international cooperation and resiliency planning that takes into consideration those countries that do not have the resources to prepare for the future.

  • Introduction to Renewable Portfolio Standards

    Introduction to Renewable Portfolio Standards

    Overview of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

    A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a standard that requires a set percentage of a state’s electricity utilities to come from renewable sources. Currently, 31 states, Washington D.C, and two U.S. territories have created RPS to help their states diversify their energy portfolios and reduce emissions. Eligible renewable energy sources included in most RPS standards include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and some hydroelectric facilities. However, the exact mix of eligible sources, as well as specific RPS targets, varies by state. Most states have existing requirements around 40%, but many, including Virginia, Washington, Nevada, and New Mexico, are beginning to renew and increase their requirements to 100%. The metric used to measure standards also differs by state, but the most common is the percentage of retail electric sales, followed by specific amounts of renewable energy capacity, and percentage of peak demand.

    Another set of related energy policies that have risen in popularity in recent years are clean energy standards (CES). Though similar to RPS, some “clean” energy sources under CES are not also “renewable,” enabling the distinction. A “clean” energy source is one that is carbon-free, and a “renewable” energy source is one that is not depleted when used. Nuclear energy is one such “clean” energy source because it has zero carbon emissions, but it is not renewable. Due to the broader definition of CES, most CES policies also have an RPS component. For example, if a CES policy sets a 90% requirement, a sub-RPS policy might require 30% from renewable sources and the remaining 60% can come from any eligible carbon-free or carbon-neutral source.

    Arguments in Favor of RPS  

    Proponents of RPS argue that its policies provide a valuable opportunity for economic growth, diversification of state energy sources, and carbon emission reductions. Though increased adoption of RPS has positive impacts on the environment, most states view environmental impact as a secondary goal. Instead, many states are pursuing RPS policies as an opportunity for economic development through diversification of their respective energy supplies. Due to their positive economic impact, most RPS policy proposals have bipartisan support, but some questions posed by their rising popularity include: How high should future targets be set? And should favored status be given to some renewable energy sources that aren’t as popular because of higher costs to promote their development? 

    Evidence suggests state RPS policies have helped reduce carbon emissions while also boosting the economy. A recent study found that the greenhouse gas and air pollution reductions from state RPS policies saved the U.S. $7.4 billion in 2013, while a different study from the same team found average annual costs to be about $1 billion, indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs. In addition, 200,000 jobs centered around renewable energy were created in 2013, partially due to the increasing adoption of state RPS. Some smaller benefits from state RPS include lower national water consumption.

    One state that has been particularly successful with RPS is Texas. Similar to most states, Texas’s eligible mix of resources was determined by its existing mix of energy and the potential sources of renewable energy given location. Wind energy quickly emerged as a prime area for energy development as a result of high wind speeds in West Texas. The 1999 legislation that put an RPS into place for the state established a robust system for the success of renewable energy in the state including a renewable energy credit program, a transparent market transaction process, and an alternative compliance mechanism. The state has since renewed their RPS many times and now has a standard of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy. 

    Given the success of most state RPS, some scholars suggest a national RPS is necessary to more efficiently promote renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping RPS policies at the state level allows for states to utilize their most abundant natural resources to create an energy portfolio that minimizes costs for their specific state. States like Texas can utilize naturally occurring high wind speeds and states like Florida and California can create robust solar energy systems. The challenge, though, is that state-based RPS allows for some states to choose not to implement or renew their RPS, thereby not contributing to the national transition to renewable energy. Due to its larger scope, a national RPS would allow for the benefits of renewable energy to be distributed nationwide without the need for individual state action. 

    Challenges Facing RPS

    In general, RPS is thought to encourage economic development through the increased production of domestic energy. However, skeptics of RPS have argued against the adoption of a national RPS for a few primary reasons. First, “renewable” and “low greenhouse gas emissions” are not synonymous, as there are other cheaper forms of electricity with low CO2 emissions, such as nuclear energy, that are not renewable. Second, the spread out locations of renewable energy sources requires building infrastructure to get energy to people, which is unlikely to happen due to time and resource constraints. Wind and solar energy collection farms, in particular, need to be sited in areas with low population density, but demand for energy in these areas is low compared to further areas with higher population density. To transport the energy to areas with higher demand would require robust transmission line infrastructure, which can be costly and time-intensive to buil.

    Following these broad concerns are a few logistical challenges. The first is that areas with a lot of renewable energy and low population density, means that supply of renewable energy can and likely will exceed demand. This presents an even larger problem given the variability of primary renewable energy sources. Supply of these resources is dependent on non-controllable factors such as weather and time of day. As a result, resources such as wind and solar power do not generate energy during times of peak demand. Another resulting logistical issue is that variable energy generation poses challenges for the electricity grid as operators seek to match levels of electricity supply and demand. Variable energy generation increases the risk of supply disruptions and blackouts. Because the grid is highly interconnected, disturbances can quickly spread and impact larger regions. Another problem is that a national RPS policy would likely rely heavily on expanding wind energy. Wind and geothermal energy have the nation’s highest growth percentage among renewable energy sources, however wind is more cost-effective. For its cost-efficacy and high rate of growth, wind will likely become a key vehicle for expanding RPS. Consequently, setting a national RPS requirement of even 15% would mean wind would have to expand exponentially in a short period of time. 

    Siting issues also present a challenge for the rollout of renewable energy technology. Siting issues could also lead to public discontent in states with high population density around viable sites. Wind and solar farms require large areas of land to generate significant amounts of energy, which can alter habitats for wildlife and result in aesthetic degradation.