Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed […]

Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed […]

By Sean Wright

Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge.

Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, underscoring that the industry is paying close attention to the issue.

Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is leaked and vented across the oil and gas supply chain every day as the world energy mix shifts towards greater natural gas usage, according to the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industry wastes billions of dollars a year of methane that simultaneously acts as a climate change accelerator, harming the brand of natural gas as a cheap and clean fuel source. Methane is 84 times more powerful as a heat-trapper than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

In the second part of Environmental Defense Fund’s recent interview with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management, Goodman shares his views on why oil and gas companies addressing methane emissions are gaining a competitive edge, and how investors are paving the path for more companies to follow suit. (You can find the first part of the interview here.)

Wright: As more companies start to manage methane emissions, do you see a potential competitive advantage for companies taking a leadership position in this area?

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement, Hermes Investment Management

Goodman: I would like to tell a story from a couple of years ago about methane detecting cameras. One of the International Oil Companies (IOC) we were working with proudly announced it was trialing an infrared methane detector camera and they were about to put in an order for five more. This was an IOC with a global footprint with a huge balance sheet. We then spoke with a company with a much smaller footprint who already had five of these cameras covering a much smaller geographic footprint. If you compare their respective footprints and balance sheets, you can see that this major was potentially lagging in its methane commitments.

We absolutely see the benefits of a leadership position on methane, as did this smaller operator. The smaller operator saw methane as something that would make them a more attractive partner, and make it easier for them to maintain their social license to operate. And of course, if you’re efficient and if you’re not leaking methane, you’re inherently safer, so it plays very much to relations with a companies’ own workforce and the service contractors with which they work.

It is clear that companies are seeing advantages in managing methane – as well as cost savings and revenue increases. There are distinct benefits to being a responsible producer – or what is often referred to as having a social license to operate – such as greater credibility with stakeholders and reduced legal and reputational risks. It’s a virtuous commercial circle in managing methane properly. Companies are getting it more and more, but I do think sometimes the reality needs to match some of the rhetoric.

Wright: So it is a competitive advantage, but it’s more so related to intangible benefits – such as reputational and partnership benefits, as opposed to the financial benefits?

Goodman: You can’t make an artificial division between what’s often called non-financial and financial. While it’s harder to measure, if you’re measuring your methane better, you’re less likely to have health and safety issues. A safer and more efficient operation attracts good labor and service contractors – people want to work for and stay with you. The community in which you operate is likely to be less concerned by your activity. All of these benefits are financial-related, but just more difficult to measure.

Wright: What types of levers do institutional investors have to reward companies that lead on methane? What actions do you take for those companies lagging on methane efforts?

Goodman: The number of institutional investors using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors to make investment decisions is increasing. Certainly, our clients are hugely interested in our engagements when they’re looking at their own portfolios. How responsive companies are to our suggestions, is a really important indicator as to the quality of the company. Our engagements encourage the leaders but also the laggards. The reputational issue is a point we stress in our engagements – and that this may lead to legal risk. Sometimes companies haven’t considered these factors in sufficient detail because it’s hard to measure. But increasingly companies seem to be investing in best-of-class measures on methane – and we encourage this type of competition in the industry. For the laggards, we focus initially on investment decisions that carry clear financial benefits but also encourage them to think about the more hidden costs and risks they might be carrying and the benefits from managing methane better that companies might not fully appreciate.

Wright: What do you think about natural gas in Europe’s energy mix? How do methane emissions relate to the fate of natural gas?

Goodman: That’s a big question. Geopolitics is a big issue. Gas from the North Sea is in decline especially in the UK sector. Increasingly, there is reluctance due to cost, risk and stakeholder pressure to explore new resources in both deep water or the Arctic or both. Much of the gas being consumed in the EU is therefore now coming from the Middle East or Russia, which clearly have big geopolitical risks.

Methane is a big issue – if natural gas is being imported from the Middle East and Russia, what are the operational standards there? We do find it difficult – not to say we’re not trying – to engage on methane with companies in these areas. But the provenance of natural gas is a real issue. This leads me to another important issue, which is once the gas arrives in Europe, attention must be paid to how it’s being used, methane leaks in the downstream infrastructure, and so on. The rapid uptake of renewables leaves a space for gas for now, but we are seeing some move towards smaller, tactical gas power stations which are more able to respond to fluctuations in the availability renewable energy than the very large gas plants that originally replaced coal-powered plants. It will also take a while for renewables to replace gas for domestic heating particularly in countries in northern Europe with old housing stock like the UK.

Wright: Conversations and potential strategies on EU methane standards are now emerging in the EU Parliament. How do you think about the role of regulations as you engage with European companies? Given the EU is home to a number of global operators with extensive joint ventures, could EU rules achieve a global benefit?

Goodman: The passage of regulation through the EU Parliament can be long and tortuous. Our focus will be reducing methane emissions, predominantly through engaging with companies and supporting regulation where we can. We very much expect all companies to have the highest possible global standards while also adhering to legislation in the countries of operation. If the EU regulation goes above and beyond standards elsewhere, that’s a good thing. But we encourage all IOCs to have higher standards than what’s regulated by law. We think global standards are easier for companies to manage. For instance, it’s much easier to manage mobile employees or multi-national companies if you have a unifying set of global best practice standards that go above local law. Our focus is on encouraging the best possible global standards on methane and other issues, and we think EU regulation may help in that effort but it may take a while and it won’t be a panacea: self-help by companies will remain our focus.

Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge. Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, underscoring that the industry is paying close attention to the issue. Methane, the main […]

By Sean Wright

Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge.

Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, underscoring that the industry is paying close attention to the issue.

Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is leaked and vented across the oil and gas supply chain every day as the world energy mix shifts towards greater natural gas usage, according to the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industry wastes billions of dollars a year of methane that simultaneously acts as a climate change accelerator, harming the brand of natural gas as a cheap and clean fuel source. Methane is 84 times more powerful as a heat-trapper than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

In the second part of Environmental Defense Fund’s recent interview with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management, Goodman shares his views on why oil and gas companies addressing methane emissions are gaining a competitive edge, and how investors are paving the path for more companies to follow suit. (You can find the first part of the interview here.)

Wright: As more companies start to manage methane emissions, do you see a potential competitive advantage for companies taking a leadership position in this area?

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement, Hermes Investment Management

Goodman: I would like to tell a story from a couple of years ago about methane detecting cameras. One of the International Oil Companies (IOC) we were working with proudly announced it was trialing an infrared methane detector camera and they were about to put in an order for five more. This was an IOC with a global footprint with a huge balance sheet. We then spoke with a company with a much smaller footprint who already had five of these cameras covering a much smaller geographic footprint. If you compare their respective footprints and balance sheets, you can see that this major was potentially lagging in its methane commitments.

We absolutely see the benefits of a leadership position on methane, as did this smaller operator. The smaller operator saw methane as something that would make them a more attractive partner, and make it easier for them to maintain their social license to operate. And of course, if you’re efficient and if you’re not leaking methane, you’re inherently safer, so it plays very much to relations with a companies’ own workforce and the service contractors with which they work.

It is clear that companies are seeing advantages in managing methane – as well as cost savings and revenue increases. There are distinct benefits to being a responsible producer – or what is often referred to as having a social license to operate – such as greater credibility with stakeholders and reduced legal and reputational risks. It’s a virtuous commercial circle in managing methane properly. Companies are getting it more and more, but I do think sometimes the reality needs to match some of the rhetoric.

Wright: So it is a competitive advantage, but it’s more so related to intangible benefits – such as reputational and partnership benefits, as opposed to the financial benefits?

Goodman: You can’t make an artificial division between what’s often called non-financial and financial. While it’s harder to measure, if you’re measuring your methane better, you’re less likely to have health and safety issues. A safer and more efficient operation attracts good labor and service contractors – people want to work for and stay with you. The community in which you operate is likely to be less concerned by your activity. All of these benefits are financial-related, but just more difficult to measure.

Wright: What types of levers do institutional investors have to reward companies that lead on methane? What actions do you take for those companies lagging on methane efforts?

Goodman: The number of institutional investors using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors to make investment decisions is increasing. Certainly, our clients are hugely interested in our engagements when they’re looking at their own portfolios. How responsive companies are to our suggestions, is a really important indicator as to the quality of the company. Our engagements encourage the leaders but also the laggards. The reputational issue is a point we stress in our engagements – and that this may lead to legal risk. Sometimes companies haven’t considered these factors in sufficient detail because it’s hard to measure. But increasingly companies seem to be investing in best-of-class measures on methane – and we encourage this type of competition in the industry. For the laggards, we focus initially on investment decisions that carry clear financial benefits but also encourage them to think about the more hidden costs and risks they might be carrying and the benefits from managing methane better that companies might not fully appreciate.

Wright: What do you think about natural gas in Europe’s energy mix? How do methane emissions relate to the fate of natural gas?

Goodman: That’s a big question. Geopolitics is a big issue. Gas from the North Sea is in decline especially in the UK sector. Increasingly, there is reluctance due to cost, risk and stakeholder pressure to explore new resources in both deep water or the Arctic or both. Much of the gas being consumed in the EU is therefore now coming from the Middle East or Russia, which clearly have big geopolitical risks.

Methane is a big issue – if natural gas is being imported from the Middle East and Russia, what are the operational standards there? We do find it difficult – not to say we’re not trying – to engage on methane with companies in these areas. But the provenance of natural gas is a real issue. This leads me to another important issue, which is once the gas arrives in Europe, attention must be paid to how it’s being used, methane leaks in the downstream infrastructure, and so on. The rapid uptake of renewables leaves a space for gas for now, but we are seeing some move towards smaller, tactical gas power stations which are more able to respond to fluctuations in the availability renewable energy than the very large gas plants that originally replaced coal-powered plants. It will also take a while for renewables to replace gas for domestic heating particularly in countries in northern Europe with old housing stock like the UK.

Wright: Conversations and potential strategies on EU methane standards are now emerging in the EU Parliament. How do you think about the role of regulations as you engage with European companies? Given the EU is home to a number of global operators with extensive joint ventures, could EU rules achieve a global benefit?

Goodman: The passage of regulation through the EU Parliament can be long and tortuous. Our focus will be reducing methane emissions, predominantly through engaging with companies and supporting regulation where we can. We very much expect all companies to have the highest possible global standards while also adhering to legislation in the countries of operation. If the EU regulation goes above and beyond standards elsewhere, that’s a good thing. But we encourage all IOCs to have higher standards than what’s regulated by law. We think global standards are easier for companies to manage. For instance, it’s much easier to manage mobile employees or multi-national companies if you have a unifying set of global best practice standards that go above local law. Our focus is on encouraging the best possible global standards on methane and other issues, and we think EU regulation may help in that effort but it may take a while and it won’t be a panacea: self-help by companies will remain our focus.

By Sean Wright

Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge.

Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, underscoring that the industry is paying close attention to the issue.

Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is leaked and vented across the oil and gas supply chain every day as the world energy mix shifts towards greater natural gas usage, according to the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industry wastes billions of dollars a year of methane that simultaneously acts as a climate change accelerator, harming the brand of natural gas as a cheap and clean fuel source. Methane is 84 times more powerful as a heat-trapper than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

In the second part of Environmental Defense Fund’s recent interview with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management, Goodman shares his views on why oil and gas companies addressing methane emissions are gaining a competitive edge, and how investors are paving the path for more companies to follow suit. (You can find the first part of the interview here.)

Wright: As more companies start to manage methane emissions, do you see a potential competitive advantage for companies taking a leadership position in this area?

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement, Hermes Investment Management

Goodman: I would like to tell a story from a couple of years ago about methane detecting cameras. One of the International Oil Companies (IOC) we were working with proudly announced it was trialing an infrared methane detector camera and they were about to put in an order for five more. This was an IOC with a global footprint with a huge balance sheet. We then spoke with a company with a much smaller footprint who already had five of these cameras covering a much smaller geographic footprint. If you compare their respective footprints and balance sheets, you can see that this major was potentially lagging in its methane commitments.

We absolutely see the benefits of a leadership position on methane, as did this smaller operator. The smaller operator saw methane as something that would make them a more attractive partner, and make it easier for them to maintain their social license to operate. And of course, if you’re efficient and if you’re not leaking methane, you’re inherently safer, so it plays very much to relations with a companies’ own workforce and the service contractors with which they work.

It is clear that companies are seeing advantages in managing methane – as well as cost savings and revenue increases. There are distinct benefits to being a responsible producer – or what is often referred to as having a social license to operate – such as greater credibility with stakeholders and reduced legal and reputational risks. It’s a virtuous commercial circle in managing methane properly. Companies are getting it more and more, but I do think sometimes the reality needs to match some of the rhetoric.

Wright: So it is a competitive advantage, but it’s more so related to intangible benefits – such as reputational and partnership benefits, as opposed to the financial benefits?

Goodman: You can’t make an artificial division between what’s often called non-financial and financial. While it’s harder to measure, if you’re measuring your methane better, you’re less likely to have health and safety issues. A safer and more efficient operation attracts good labor and service contractors – people want to work for and stay with you. The community in which you operate is likely to be less concerned by your activity. All of these benefits are financial-related, but just more difficult to measure.

Wright: What types of levers do institutional investors have to reward companies that lead on methane? What actions do you take for those companies lagging on methane efforts?

Goodman: The number of institutional investors using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors to make investment decisions is increasing. Certainly, our clients are hugely interested in our engagements when they’re looking at their own portfolios. How responsive companies are to our suggestions, is a really important indicator as to the quality of the company. Our engagements encourage the leaders but also the laggards. The reputational issue is a point we stress in our engagements – and that this may lead to legal risk. Sometimes companies haven’t considered these factors in sufficient detail because it’s hard to measure. But increasingly companies seem to be investing in best-of-class measures on methane – and we encourage this type of competition in the industry. For the laggards, we focus initially on investment decisions that carry clear financial benefits but also encourage them to think about the more hidden costs and risks they might be carrying and the benefits from managing methane better that companies might not fully appreciate.

Wright: What do you think about natural gas in Europe’s energy mix? How do methane emissions relate to the fate of natural gas?

Goodman: That’s a big question. Geopolitics is a big issue. Gas from the North Sea is in decline especially in the UK sector. Increasingly, there is reluctance due to cost, risk and stakeholder pressure to explore new resources in both deep water or the Arctic or both. Much of the gas being consumed in the EU is therefore now coming from the Middle East or Russia, which clearly have big geopolitical risks.

Methane is a big issue – if natural gas is being imported from the Middle East and Russia, what are the operational standards there? We do find it difficult – not to say we’re not trying – to engage on methane with companies in these areas. But the provenance of natural gas is a real issue. This leads me to another important issue, which is once the gas arrives in Europe, attention must be paid to how it’s being used, methane leaks in the downstream infrastructure, and so on. The rapid uptake of renewables leaves a space for gas for now, but we are seeing some move towards smaller, tactical gas power stations which are more able to respond to fluctuations in the availability renewable energy than the very large gas plants that originally replaced coal-powered plants. It will also take a while for renewables to replace gas for domestic heating particularly in countries in northern Europe with old housing stock like the UK.

Wright: Conversations and potential strategies on EU methane standards are now emerging in the EU Parliament. How do you think about the role of regulations as you engage with European companies? Given the EU is home to a number of global operators with extensive joint ventures, could EU rules achieve a global benefit?

Goodman: The passage of regulation through the EU Parliament can be long and tortuous. Our focus will be reducing methane emissions, predominantly through engaging with companies and supporting regulation where we can. We very much expect all companies to have the highest possible global standards while also adhering to legislation in the countries of operation. If the EU regulation goes above and beyond standards elsewhere, that’s a good thing. But we encourage all IOCs to have higher standards than what’s regulated by law. We think global standards are easier for companies to manage. For instance, it’s much easier to manage mobile employees or multi-national companies if you have a unifying set of global best practice standards that go above local law. Our focus is on encouraging the best possible global standards on methane and other issues, and we think EU regulation may help in that effort but it may take a while and it won’t be a panacea: self-help by companies will remain our focus.

Written by Dominique Browning

When we buy cars, we put our trust into the companies making them. And we trust that the regulations passed by our government make us safer. We trust that seat belts function. We trust that materials will withstand collision. We trust that fuels are burning as efficiently and cleanly as possible.

We literally trust carmakers with our lives—and the lives of those most precious to us: our babies.

These days, I’m wondering how we can keep trusting American automakers.

American automakers, including Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler, are actively working to make our cars dirtier and less efficient. While some have committed to producing electric vehicles in the future, those are just a tiny portion of the cars on the road right now. Meanwhile, they are colluding with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to lower fuel efficiency requirements and undo vehicle greenhouse gas standards. These are the very standards that automakers APPLAUDED under President Obama.

It is surreal and cynical: the person in charge of the department that was created to protect our air—and our health, and the more vulnerable lungs, hearts, and brains of our children—is actively working to Make America Dirty Again. Who voted for that?

And the companies that make our cars are helping him along.

Bill Ford was once a leader in “green” design, a person we looked to for inspiration and innovation; a corporate executive who cared about the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing our climate crisis. His leadership has evaporated.

Fiat Chrysler is under investigation by the Justice Department—for using “defeat devices” to cheat on emissions tests in Dodge Ram and Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, just like Volkswagon did.

These and other car companies, including GM, which has been meeting with Pruitt, are supporting EPA’s efforts to roll back greenhouse gas emissions standards, even though it’s clear from EPA’s own analysis that the companies can meet and exceed the standards.

Fortunately, EPA is required read and respond to a public docket, so moms can register our opposition to this charade.

A mother’s trust is no small thing to squander. Right now, moms know that America’s carmakers don’t care about our children’s health and future.

Join me to make sure EPA holds them to the task, despite their whining. Because our lives literally do depend on it.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT CLEAN CAR STANDARDS

SaveSave

On today’s show Chris Macaluso, Director of the Center for Marine Fisheries, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about what they do and how the Mississippi River helps create Louisiana's unique habitats and fisheries. Erik Johnson, Director of The Bird Conservation at Audubon Louisiana stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about what birds can be found along Louisiana’s coast, Audubon’s Plants for Birds Program, the Christmas Bird Count and more! Below is ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Bird and Fish in the Sportsman's Paradise appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Chris Macaluso, Director of the Center for Marine Fisheries, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about what they do and how the Mississippi River helps create Louisiana's unique habitats and fisheries. Erik Johnson, Director of The Bird Conservation at Audubon Louisiana stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about what birds can be found along Louisiana’s coast, Audubon’s Plants for Birds Program, the Christmas Bird Count and more! Below is ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Bird and Fish in the Sportsman's Paradise appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Chris Macaluso, Director of the Center for Marine Fisheries, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about what they do and how the Mississippi River helps create Louisiana's unique habitats and fisheries. Erik Johnson, Director of The Bird Conservation at Audubon Louisiana stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about what birds can be found along Louisiana’s coast, Audubon’s Plants for Birds Program, the Christmas Bird Count and more! Below is ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Bird and Fish in the Sportsman's Paradise appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Ilissa Ocko

Source: FEMA

The disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico is heartbreaking – and a call for action.

Our focus as a nation must be to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible, but also to do what we can to prevent similar catastrophic events in the future.

With three Category 4 hurricanes – undoubtedly worsened by climate change – making landfall and wreaking havoc in the United States in just a few weeks, we’ve had three wake-up calls. Climate change is an urgent issue that must be addressed now.

By continuing to ignore the fundamental threat that global warming poses today, however, the Trump administration is setting up Puerto Rico and the rest of the Hurricane Alley region for more disasters and tragedies.

It’s akin to a doctor who treats the symptoms of a patient while ignoring a dangerous, underlying disease. It makes for a bad doctor – and America expects more than that.

Puerto Ricans are living climate change

Considered a “canary in the coal mine” for climate change, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been feeling the consequences of a warming world for some time already.

Its beaches are retreating with some homes in the capital of San Juan and in Rincón, a popular surfing town, actually falling into the ocean amid rising seas – and coastal flooding is getting worse.

That’s not all: The island is also challenged by intensifying tropical heat, heavier downpours and – as we just saw with Hurricane Maria – its location in the path of stronger hurricanes.

When rebuilding Puerto Rico, we need to help the island become more resilient to such impacts of climate change – while doubling down on curbing emissions that cause the problem in the first place.

Roofless homes in Puerto Rico after the storm. Photo: FEMA

Island’s economy hangs in balance

A vast majority of the Puerto Rico’s population of 3.4 million, more than 85 percent, lives within five miles of a coast that is threatened by the rising ocean.

Like islands in the South Pacific, it’s seeing sea level rise of about half a foot on average from melting land ice and warmer ocean waters. This trend, which is accelerating, has made roads, ports and other infrastructure that are key to Puerto Rico’s economy more vulnerable.

As we’ve seen over the past few weeks, sea level rise compounds the impacts of hurricanes when worsened storm surge causes flooding in communities along the coast. The resulting damage from this and other climate impacts has a direct effect on Puerto Rican daily life as well as on tourism, which accounts for 8 percent of the island’s economy.

Climate impacts are getting worse

Scientists predict Puerto Rico will see a sea level rise of 22 inches by 2060. That translates into a lot more storm surge, more destroyed property and even bigger hits to the nation’s tourist economy.

Research also suggests more heat, rainfall, and stronger hurricanes are in the future [PDF] for Puerto Rico.

The science is clear: Rising temperatures and heavier rainfall both play a key role in intensifying hurricane strength and destruction.

Ninety percent of excess heat is absorbed by the oceans and this warming water energizes hurricanes and evaporates more water into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of rainfall in storms – just like we’ve seen in recent weeks.

All these challenges will escalate in coming decades.

These fellow Americans deserve our help

As we see in Puerto Rico today, it’s the most vulnerable among us who feel the impacts of climate change the most. They need our help to build a better and stronger future.

Treating the symptoms of climate change is absolutely essential. We must come together quickly as a nation and help our fellow Americans through this crisis.

But treating the underlying disease – heat-trapping gas emissions – is equally essential. Or the devastation we’re witnessing in Puerto Rico will keep happening.

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

By Ilissa Ocko

Source: FEMA

The disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico is heartbreaking – and a call for action.

Our focus as a nation must be to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible, but also to do what we can to prevent similar catastrophic events in the future.

With three Category 4 hurricanes – undoubtedly worsened by climate change – making landfall and wreaking havoc in the United States in just a few weeks, we’ve had three wake-up calls. Climate change is an urgent issue that must be addressed now.

By continuing to ignore the fundamental threat that global warming poses today, however, the Trump administration is setting up Puerto Rico and the rest of the Hurricane Alley region for more disasters and tragedies.

It’s akin to a doctor who treats the symptoms of a patient while ignoring a dangerous, underlying disease. It makes for a bad doctor – and America expects more than that.

Puerto Ricans are living climate change

Considered a “canary in the coal mine” for climate change, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been feeling the consequences of a warming world for some time already.

Its beaches are retreating with some homes in the capital of San Juan and in Rincón, a popular surfing town, actually falling into the ocean amid rising seas – and coastal flooding is getting worse.

That’s not all: The island is also challenged by intensifying tropical heat, heavier downpours and – as we just saw with Hurricane Maria – its location in the path of stronger hurricanes.

When rebuilding Puerto Rico, we need to help the island become more resilient to such impacts of climate change – while doubling down on curbing emissions that cause the problem in the first place.

Roofless homes in Puerto Rico after the storm. Photo: FEMA

Island’s economy hangs in balance

A vast majority of the Puerto Rico’s population of 3.4 million, more than 85 percent, lives within five miles of a coast that is threatened by the rising ocean.

Like islands in the South Pacific, it’s seeing sea level rise of about half a foot on average from melting land ice and warmer ocean waters. This trend, which is accelerating, has made roads, ports and other infrastructure that are key to Puerto Rico’s economy more vulnerable.

As we’ve seen over the past few weeks, sea level rise compounds the impacts of hurricanes when worsened storm surge causes flooding in communities along the coast. The resulting damage from this and other climate impacts has a direct effect on Puerto Rican daily life as well as on tourism, which accounts for 8 percent of the island’s economy.

Climate impacts are getting worse

Scientists predict Puerto Rico will see a sea level rise of 22 inches by 2060. That translates into a lot more storm surge, more destroyed property and even bigger hits to the nation’s tourist economy.

Research also suggests more heat, rainfall, and stronger hurricanes are in the future [PDF] for Puerto Rico.

The science is clear: Rising temperatures and heavier rainfall both play a key role in intensifying hurricane strength and destruction.

Ninety percent of excess heat is absorbed by the oceans and this warming water energizes hurricanes and evaporates more water into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of rainfall in storms – just like we’ve seen in recent weeks.

All these challenges will escalate in coming decades.

These fellow Americans deserve our help

As we see in Puerto Rico today, it’s the most vulnerable among us who feel the impacts of climate change the most. They need our help to build a better and stronger future.

Treating the symptoms of climate change is absolutely essential. We must come together quickly as a nation and help our fellow Americans through this crisis.

But treating the underlying disease – heat-trapping gas emissions – is equally essential. Or the devastation we’re witnessing in Puerto Rico will keep happening.

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

The disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico is heartbreaking – and a call for action. Our focus as a nation must be to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible, but also to do what we can to prevent similar catastrophic events in the future. With three Category 4 hurricanes – undoubtedly worsened by climate change – […]

The disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico is heartbreaking – and a call for action. Our focus as a nation must be to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible, but also to do what we can to prevent similar catastrophic events in the future. With three Category 4 hurricanes – undoubtedly worsened by climate change – […]

The post Puerto Rico a tragic reminder of why climate action cannot wait appeared first on Climate 411.

Puerto Rico a tragic reminder of why climate action cannot wait

The disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico is heartbreaking – and a call for action.

Our focus as a nation must be to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible, but also to do what we can to prevent similar catastrophic events in the future.

With three Category 4 hurricanes – undoubtedly worsened by climate change – making landfall and wreaking havoc in the United States in just a few weeks, we’ve had three wake-up calls. Climate change is an urgent issue that must be addressed now.

By continuing to ignore the fundamental threat that global warming poses today, however, the Trump administration is setting up Puerto Rico and the rest of the Hurricane Alley region for more disasters and tragedies.

It’s akin to a doctor who treats the symptoms of a patient while ignoring a dangerous, underlying disease. It makes for a bad doctor – and America expects more than that.

Puerto Ricans are living climate change

Considered a “canary in the coal mine” for climate change, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been feeling the consequences of a warming world for some time already.

Its beaches are retreating with some homes in the capital of San Juan and in Rincón, a popular surfing town, actually falling into the ocean amid rising seas – and coastal flooding is getting worse.

That’s not all: The island is also challenged by intensifying tropical heat, heavier downpours and – as we just saw with Hurricane Maria – its location in the path of stronger hurricanes.

When rebuilding Puerto Rico, we need to help the island become more resilient to such impacts of climate change – while doubling down on curbing emissions that cause the problem in the first place.

Roofless homes in Puerto Rico after the storm. Photo: FEMA

Island’s economy hangs in balance  

A vast majority of the Puerto Rico’s population of 3.4 million, more than 85 percent, lives within five miles of a coast that is threatened by the rising ocean.

Like islands in the South Pacific, it’s seeing sea level rise of about half a foot on average from melting land ice and warmer ocean waters. This trend, which is accelerating, has made roads, ports and other infrastructure that are key to Puerto Rico’s economy more vulnerable.

As we’ve seen over the past few weeks, sea level rise compounds the impacts of hurricanes when worsened storm surge causes flooding in communities along the coast. The resulting damage from this and other climate impacts has a direct effect on Puerto Rican daily life as well as on tourism, which accounts for 8 percent of the island’s economy.

Climate impacts are getting worse

Scientists predict Puerto Rico will see a sea level rise of 22 inches by 2060. That translates into a lot more storm surge, more destroyed property and even bigger hits to the nation’s tourist economy.

Research also suggests more heat, rainfall, and stronger hurricanes are in the future [PDF] for Puerto Rico.

The science is clear: Rising temperatures and heavier rainfall both play a key role in intensifying hurricane strength and destruction.

Ninety percent of excess heat is absorbed by the oceans and this warming water energizes hurricanes and evaporates more water into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of rainfall in storms – just like we’ve seen in recent weeks.

All these challenges will escalate in coming decades.

These fellow Americans deserve our help

As we see in Puerto Rico today, it’s the most vulnerable among us who feel the impacts of climate change the most. They need our help to build a better and stronger future.

Treating the symptoms of climate change is absolutely essential. We must come together quickly as a nation and help our fellow Americans through this crisis.

But treating the underlying disease – heat-trapping gas emissions – is equally essential. Or the devastation we’re witnessing in Puerto Rico will keep happening.

Tell Scott Pruitt: Revoking the Clean Power Plan will cost thousands of lives Anonymous October 3, 2017 - 11:48

Leave a comment

Add new comment

When it comes to the history and DNA of a city, new buildings have nothing on century-old ones. Yet the reverse can be said in regard to water and energy efficiency. Older buildings reflect the culture and history of a community, but typically are highly inefficient. Such was the case with the Butler Brothers Building in […]

By Kate Zerrenner

When it comes to the history and DNA of a city, new buildings have nothing on century-old ones. Yet the reverse can be said in regard to water and energy efficiency. Older buildings reflect the culture and history of a community, but typically are highly inefficient.

Such was the case with the Butler Brothers Building in Dallas, a previously-abandoned 1910 structure that was often referred to as an eyesore. So when the real estate developer Alterra International decided to turn the building into a mixed-use complex with apartments, hotel rooms, and retail space, a lot of work was needed to improve its water and energy efficiency – work that required up-front capital investments.

Through the Texas PACE Authority’s “PACE in a Box” model, Alterra International was able to secure $23.9 million in PACE financing for upgrades that will slash carbon pollution, cutting energy use by about 40 percent and annual water use by almost 700,000 gallons.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is a financing model that helps local governments and the private sector back energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades for homes and businesses. Texas is the only state that includes water in its PACE programs and could serve as a model for other water-strapped states.

PACE in Texas

Fortunately for the Butler Brothers project, Dallas is one of the many local communities that has embraced Texas’ PACE program. According to the Texas PACE Authority, PACE is:

“An innovative financing program – completely free of government mandates and public funding – that enables non-profit, commercial, industrial, multi-family, and agricultural property owners to obtain up to 100 percent of the project financing from low-cost, long-term loans for water conservation, energy efficiency, and onsite generation projects.”

Historic buildings or energy efficiency? Texas gets both, with innovative financing.
Click To Tweet

Enacted in June 2013 with bipartisan support, PACE has gained steam in Texas in recent years: Many cities and counties, including the City of Dallas, City of Houston, and El Paso County, have authorized use of the clean energy finance tool. Most recently, the City of Amarillo approved Texas’ 15th PACE program – the first in the panhandle region.

As a result, exciting projects are getting off the ground to lower energy and water waste. For example, last year three Simon Property Group malls secured over $3 million in PACE financing for energy and water-saving retrofits. And Austin’s Congregation Beth Israel was able to use PACE to alleviate its skyrocketing energy bills by improving its insulation.

Texas’ largest PACE project

The nearly $24 million in financing for Dallas’ Butler Brothers Building covered improvements to HVAC, lighting, insulation, roofing, glazing, exterior waterproofing and plaster, plumbing fixtures, and irrigation systems, making it the largest PACE project in the Lone Star State. Furthermore,

“This project will contribute to the creation of over 100 jobs in the Dallas area, reduce annual electricity use by more than 6.6 million kilowatt hours, remove over 3.500 metric tons of CO2e each year, and save almost 700,000 gallons of water per year.”

An open-market approach, Texas’ PACE program is already shaping up to be a model for other states and communities around the country. Hopefully the Dallas project will show that, through the use of this innovative finance tool, century-old buildings across the state can have both history and efficiency.

Photo source: Alterra International

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.