The President's proposed budget is putting America's beaches at risk--but you can fight back. C4.

The President's proposed budget is putting America's beaches at risk--but you can fight back. C4.

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

As weather patterns change and temperatures continue to rise, climate change remains at the forefront of research, political debates, and everyday discussions. The term ‘climate change’ evokes a variety of images and concerns in many of us, most of which have to do with a livable planet. But climate change not only impacts the earth it also directly impacts our own health.

As seasonal temperatures fluctuate due to climate change we are seeing an increase in asthma and allergies. There is also new evidence showing that climate change is impacting our mental health and emotional well-being, linking it to anxiety, and heightened aggression and violence

Lack of sleep has also recently entered the climate change discussion. A new paper, Nighttime temperature and human sleep loss in a changing climate, predicts that as temperatures creep up the number of sleepless nights will also increase.

How climate change is impacting our sleep

Getting enough sleep is important for maintaining optimal health. In study after study, the risks of insufficient sleep are well-documented and considered a public health issue. Lack of sleep can: “increase susceptibility to disease and chronic illness and harm psychological and cognitive functioning”.

Over the last century, nighttime global temperatures have been increasing more rapidly than daytime temperatures. It’s a  known fact that human sleep patterns are highly regulated by temperature. When it’s too hot or too cold at night it’s difficult to get an adequate night’s sleep. With global emissions continuing at the current pace nighttime temperatures will continue to rise and our ability to sleep will likely be disrupted. It’s anticipated that by 2050, for every 100 Americans, an extra six nights of sleeplessness can be expected every month.

Susceptible communities

Sleepless nights due to a changing climate do not impact everyone equally. Those without the financial resources to afford air conditioning are more likely to experience sleepless nights than those with air conditioning. Generally speaking the elderly and low-income populations are most affected by the rising temperatures and extreme heat.

What you can do to about climate change

The list of ways we can help stop climate change is long, including:

• Support leaders who pledge to repair our climate including those in favor of renewable energy
• Think about ways you can conserve and reduce
• Shop and eat locally when possible
• Drive a fuel-efficient car
• Make the switch to LED bulbs

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

The Texas Clean Air Working Group (TCAWG) and the city of Austin will hold a workshop on Monday (June 26th) to discuss how Texas can use funding from the Volkswagen settlement to reduce smog-forming pollution and increase the use of zero-emission, all-electric vehicles. More information and registration instructions available here.

In July 2016, Volkswagen agreed to pay $14.7 billion in penalties to resolve a decade-long case stemming from a scheme to cheat on diesel emissions tests. The automaker had imported almost 600,000 vehicles that emitted illegal levels of harmful pollutants.

The agreement, coupled with a May 2017 settlement, will provide almost $5 billion for projects that promote cleaner air and the development of zero-emissions vehicles and infrastructure.

As its portion of the agreements, Texas is eligible to receive $209 million for projects that reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides over the next decade. The state also is eligible to receive a share of $1.2 billion that was set aside for zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure.

To access these funds, Texas must submit a plan that describes how it would spend the money and reduce emissions. The state also must show how it would engage the public when choosing projects.

Accordingly, TCAWG and the city of Austin will hold a workshop for all interested stakeholders. The session will provide participants with the opportunity to learn more about available and emerging technologies and to discuss the benefits of several potential projects.

With careful and strategic planning, Texas has the opportunity to maximize these dollars to transform transportation in the state while creating jobs and reducing pollution.

The workshop will be June 26, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the Austin Convention Center, 500 E. Cesar Chavez, in conjunction with the Smart Cities Connect Conference.

Admission is free, but registration is required. The full agenda and registration instructions are available here.

This legislation is clearly designed to alienate North Carolinians from the political process. Don't let your State Senate undermine your most basic rights. Regional. C4.

Written by Diane MacEachern

You probably live far away from a coal mine. You may not live that near to a power plant that burns coal, either. But unless you’ve put solar panels on your roof or are purchasing power generated by the wind, you’re probably still using coal every day to power your lights, your laptop, your life.

Unless, that is, you live in the city of Georgetown, Texas. That’s right, Texas. Right in the heart of coal country in one of the “reddest” states in the union.

Most people in this city of 54,000 voted for Donald Trump, coal mining’s most famous crusader. They would not consider themselves environmentalists; they’re definitely not liberal or progressive activists. But as you’ll see when you watch “From the Ashes,” the don’t-miss new documentary premiering on the National Geographic Network on June 25, you don’t have to be Democrat or Republican to want to breathe clean air, protect clean water and save money on energy costs.

That’s why they’ve bucked the political rhetoric proclaiming there’s a “war on coal” and instead have set an amazing goal: they plan to switch over to getting 100% of their energy from renewable solar and wind, NOT coal, by 2018.

“From The Ashes,” makes a compelling case that this is a big deal. The film shows you just how damaging coal is for people and the planet. (Tweet this) Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Burning it fouls the air with noxious particulates and releases a significant proportion of the carbon dioxide that causes climate change. Whole mountain tops get blown away to make it easier to get to the coal below, which sends tons of rocks and debris sliding into river valleys, fouling rivers and streams and destroying forests. Plus, mining coal is among the deadliest of professions, given the potential for underground explosions and mine collapses.

But coal and coal miners have helped power America for decades, and “From The Ashes” poignantly acknowledges the debt we owe the industry and its workers for enabling America to become the industrial and economic powerhouse it has. It’s just that, it is more than time to move on, a message delivered in the film by coal miners themselves, as well as people living far from the mines and who are getting sick because the power plants that provide their electricity burn so much coal.

One of the film’s most compelling spokespeople is Misti O’Quinn. This mother of three lives in Dallas, where two of her children suffer severely from asthma brought on by breathing the city’s coal-polluted air. Some of the most heartbreaking scenes in the film show just how debilitated one of Misti’s little boys is. He’s practically tethered to a respirator, in and out of doctor’s offices, and a constant source of worry to his mom.

“Breath is life,” she says, whether we’re rich or poor, conservative or liberal. “It’s time to shift” to clean energy, she says, because, “if you don’t breathe, then what?”

A hot political issue has focused on how many coal miners are being put out of work as natural gas expands its reach and demand for clean safe energy grows. The film goes back to coal country again, this time to West Virginia, where the innovative Coalfield Development Corporation is doing what needs to be done: retraining coal miners in new occupations that don’t rely on coal to succeed, like community-based real estate development and social entrepreneurship. Part of their mission is to “inspire the courage to grow and the creativity to transform perceived liabilities into assets.” Goodbye coal, hello the future.

“From The Ashes” builds on the environmental philanthropic work of Bloomberg Philanthropies and serves as a sort of video companion to Climate of Hope, a book written by former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg and former Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, as well as the Beyond Coal campaign. The campaign is organizing local communities to retire old and outdated coal plans and to prevent new coal plants from being built. Thus far, the campaign has announced the pending phase out of nearly 40 percent of the 523 U.S. coal plants that were in operation when the campaign began five years ago.

“From the Ashes” also serves up a powerful argument in favor of maintaining America’s Clean Power Plan. You can’t watch this movie and think, “It’s not possible to get rid of coal.” Indeed, I’ll be surprised if you don’t come away thinking, “The sooner the better!”

I hope you’ll watch this film with your family and friends on Sunday, and urge your social networks to watch it as well.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Chris Meyer

Véu de Noiva Waterfall in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil | Photo credit:Robert L. Dona via Wikipedia comms

Major consumer goods companies that have pledged to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains need support from their local governments to accelerate and scale up the implementation of their commitments, according to analysis from Environmental Defense Fund published in the latest journal from the European Tropical Forest Research Network (ETFRN).

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, and hundreds of consumer goods companies that purchase soy, palm oil, timber & pulp, and beef—the big four commodities that contribute significantly to deforestation—committed to eliminating deforestation from their supply chains.

But a vast majority haven’t yet acted on their zero-deforestation commitments or reported their progress—and leadership from local government can help.

Why local government leadership is needed

One way companies are trying to reduce deforestation in their supply chains is by using global certification processes. But because the processes didn’t include local governments when designing their certifications, the certifications have not solved the underlying governance issues at the heart of deforestation. 

Global certification processes have not solved the underlying governance issues at the heart of deforestation

A more inclusive and comprehensive solution to illegal deforestation focuses on resolving deforestation from all activities located in a state, province, or within national boundaries, i.e. a “jurisdiction”, instead of focusing solely on the supply chain of one commodity or company. This means the local government leads a multi-stakeholder process including producers, purchasers, civil society, and other relevant actors.

Leading multinational private sector companies such as Unilever, Marks & Spencer, and Mondelez have adopted the jurisdictional approach to implement their zero-deforestation commitments.

Mato Grosso: an example of local government leadership

Mato Grosso’s jurisdictional approach, known as Produce, Conserve, and Include (PCI), provides a good example of how local governments can take the lead.

Launched in 2016, the initiative encapsulates the state government’s ambition to decrease deforestation while increasing agricultural production. The government is collaborating with local soy and beef producer associations, soy buyer Amaggi, beef packer Marfrig, and civil society organizations to grow the agricultural economy, improve incomes and services for the state’s small farmer families and maintain the 60% of the state under native vegetation cover.

While economic and political turmoil have slowed progress on implementing the ambitious strategy, it may nonetheless already be making a contribution to reducing deforestation: in 2016, deforestation decreased by 6% in Mato Grosso, while Brazil’s national deforestation increased by 29%.

How a jurisdictional approach should be implemented

In the analysis, EDF proposes a blueprint of how a jurisdictional approach should be implemented. Specifically, it provides guidance on:

1. Which actors need to be involved and their roles
2. Important definitions to be decided upon such as what is deforestation in the local context
3. Process infrastructure needed such as a robust multi-stakeholder platform
4. Where to find the funding for implementation

To move forward with zero-deforestation efforts, companies must build on the existing platform of global certification processes and speed up local governance solutions. Local governments must be involved and lead the process to tackle deforestation.

The new ETFRN journal serves as a timely guidebook for companies to work together with local governments and other stakeholders to accelerate and scale up the implementation of zero deforestation commitments. EDF will continue to work with our corporate and government partners to implement these lessons.

Major consumer goods companies that have pledged to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains need support from their local governments to accelerate and scale up the implementation of their commitments, according to analysis from Environmental Defense Fund

By Michael Panfil

Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month.

Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, it became clear over the two-day long event that more fundamental questions were on the minds of many participants. Most significantly, for generators, was the question of cost. 

More affordable electricity bills are good for customers and businesses. EDF has long supported technologies, resources, and policies that help lower electricity prices, reduce carbon emissions, and cut waste. However at the Conference, many power companies urged FERC to take steps that would increase costs (and, consequently, their profits).

The argument these power companies advanced was nuanced. It had to be, as simply asking FERC to increase prices goes against a core FERC mandate: to keep prices “just and reasonable” (that is, as affordable as possible while maintaining reliability). So instead, power companies argued that state public policies are to blame, and artificially make electricity prices lower than they should be.

State public policies are, however, not to blame. As we wrote in our filed comments, low-prices are largely being driven by incredible oversupply and cheap natural gas in the marketplace. Oversupply, that is, having more supply of a product (in this case, electricity) than demand, is particularly rampant. In the mid-Atlantic, for example, the most recent energy auction resulted in 23 percent more generation being purchased than needed.

In a typical marketplace, oversupply coupled with flat or shrinking demand generally leads to lower prices and costlier merchants leaving. Yet wholesale electricity markets are still signaling the opposite — power companies continue to build new power plants and are racking up extra reserve resources at record rates. This suggests a different picture than what many power companies argue: prices aren’t too low; they may in fact be too high.

What will FERC do in wake of increasingly affordable electricity prices?
Click To Tweet

Cheaper, cleaner, faster

Electricity markets are generally delivering what was promised when they were first created: electricity continues to be reliable at more and more affordable prices. There are ways they can be improved; in our comments we recommend a series of steps that can help make electricity markets more efficient and more affordable. EDF suggests that markets can be improved, for example, by reducing oversupply and more accurately pricing sought-after attributes.

Our comments additionally point out that arguments against state public policies are misguided. States play an important role in our electricity system, and the legal system respects the fact that state and local officials are best able to judge the needs of their citizens. Unlike what some argued at the Conference, state public policies are helping to support a healthy electricity sector, and work together with wholesale electricity markets to ensure that we’re getting reliable, affordable electricity.

The American electricity grid is overseen by regulators charged with ensuring reliable electricity at ‘just and reasonable’ prices. EDF will continue to advocate before them for affordable energy, state and consumer rights, and an efficient electricity market.  Look for more blog posts on the topic in the weeks and months to come.

 

Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month. Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, […]

Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month. Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, […]

The post What will FERC do in wake of increasingly affordable electricity prices? appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Michael Panfil

Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month.

Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, it became clear over the two-day long event that more fundamental questions were on the minds of many participants. Most significantly, for generators, was the question of cost. 

More affordable electricity bills are good for customers and businesses. EDF has long supported technologies, resources, and policies that help lower electricity prices, reduce carbon emissions, and cut waste. However at the Conference, many power companies urged FERC to take steps that would increase costs (and, consequently, their profits).

The argument these power companies advanced was nuanced. It had to be, as simply asking FERC to increase prices goes against a core FERC mandate: to keep prices “just and reasonable” (that is, as affordable as possible while maintaining reliability). So instead, power companies argued that state public policies are to blame, and artificially make electricity prices lower than they should be.

State public policies are, however, not to blame. As we wrote in our filed comments, low-prices are largely being driven by incredible oversupply and cheap natural gas in the marketplace. Oversupply, that is, having more supply of a product (in this case, electricity) than demand, is particularly rampant. In the mid-Atlantic, for example, the most recent energy auction resulted in 23 percent more generation being purchased than needed.

In a typical marketplace, oversupply coupled with flat or shrinking demand generally leads to lower prices and costlier merchants leaving. Yet wholesale electricity markets are still signaling the opposite — power companies continue to build new power plants and are racking up extra reserve resources at record rates. This suggests a different picture than what many power companies argue: prices aren’t too low; they may in fact be too high.

What will FERC do in wake of increasingly affordable electricity prices?
Click To Tweet

Cheaper, cleaner, faster

Electricity markets are generally delivering what was promised when they were first created: electricity continues to be reliable at more and more affordable prices. There are ways they can be improved; in our comments we recommend a series of steps that can help make electricity markets more efficient and more affordable. EDF suggests that markets can be improved, for example, by reducing oversupply and more accurately pricing sought-after attributes.

Our comments additionally point out that arguments against state public policies are misguided. States play an important role in our electricity system, and the legal system respects the fact that state and local officials are best able to judge the needs of their citizens. Unlike what some argued at the Conference, state public policies are helping to support a healthy electricity sector, and work together with wholesale electricity markets to ensure that we’re getting reliable, affordable electricity.

The American electricity grid is overseen by regulators charged with ensuring reliable electricity at ‘just and reasonable’ prices. EDF will continue to advocate before them for affordable energy, state and consumer rights, and an efficient electricity market.  Look for more blog posts on the topic in the weeks and months to come.

 

By Michael Panfil

Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month.

Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, it became clear over the two-day long event that more fundamental questions were on the minds of many participants. Most significantly, for generators, was the question of cost. 

More affordable electricity bills are good for customers and businesses. EDF has long supported technologies, resources, and policies that help lower electricity prices, reduce carbon emissions, and cut waste. However at the Conference, many power companies urged FERC to take steps that would increase costs (and, consequently, their profits).

The argument these power companies advanced was nuanced. It had to be, as simply asking FERC to increase prices goes against a core FERC mandate: to keep prices “just and reasonable” (that is, as affordable as possible while maintaining reliability). So instead, power companies argued that state public policies are to blame, and artificially make electricity prices lower than they should be.

State public policies are, however, not to blame. As we wrote in our filed comments, low-prices are largely being driven by incredible oversupply and cheap natural gas in the marketplace. Oversupply, that is, having more supply of a product (in this case, electricity) than demand, is particularly rampant. In the mid-Atlantic, for example, the most recent energy auction resulted in 23 percent more generation being purchased than needed.

In a typical marketplace, oversupply coupled with flat or shrinking demand generally leads to lower prices and costlier merchants leaving. Yet wholesale electricity markets are still signaling the opposite — power companies continue to build new power plants and are racking up extra reserve resources at record rates. This suggests a different picture than what many power companies argue: prices aren’t too low; they may in fact be too high.

What will FERC do in wake of increasingly affordable electricity prices?
Click To Tweet

Cheaper, cleaner, faster

Electricity markets are generally delivering what was promised when they were first created: electricity continues to be reliable at more and more affordable prices. There are ways they can be improved; in our comments we recommend a series of steps that can help make electricity markets more efficient and more affordable. EDF suggests that markets can be improved, for example, by reducing oversupply and more accurately pricing sought-after attributes.

Our comments additionally point out that arguments against state public policies are misguided. States play an important role in our electricity system, and the legal system respects the fact that state and local officials are best able to judge the needs of their citizens. Unlike what some argued at the Conference, state public policies are helping to support a healthy electricity sector, and work together with wholesale electricity markets to ensure that we’re getting reliable, affordable electricity.

The American electricity grid is overseen by regulators charged with ensuring reliable electricity at ‘just and reasonable’ prices. EDF will continue to advocate before them for affordable energy, state and consumer rights, and an efficient electricity market.  Look for more blog posts on the topic in the weeks and months to come.

 

By Maggie Monast

Photo credit: USDA

The vast majority of the media stories surrounding Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods have focused on how the deal could affect the cost of food, home delivery services, competition in the retail space and our overall shopping experiences.

While it’s still too early to predict what exactly Amazon will do with hundreds of new brick and mortar grocery stores, here are three possible implications for farmers and the land they rely on to grow our food.

1. Demand for organic could skyrocket

As of last month, organic products represented more than 5 percent of all grocery sales in the US – and organics have been one of the strongest areas of growth for many retailers and grocery stores.

Now, with Whole Foods under the Amazon umbrella, that demand could increase exponentially. POLITICO noted that if this happens, “domestic organic acreage isn’t positioned to handle such an expansion.”

• Although organic sales have grown rapidly, the amount of organic cropland has remained largely the same.
• The process for farmers to transition to organic requires a three-year transition period, during which products do not earn a premium in the marketplace – thereby limiting the number of farmers willing to make the switch.
• This all means there are limitations for companies looking to secure an adequate supply of organic foods for their customers.

Furthermore, scaling up organic farming is not enough to feed a hungry planet. Organic is an important part of the food system, but it is not a silver bullet leading us to a food-secure world.

On a related note, in all of the buzz about the merger let’s not forget that, as Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel put it, “We need to feed a growing planet. Vegetables aren’t the answer.” That’s why we’re so focused on ensuring that commodity crops are grown sustainably.

3 ways Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods could affect agriculture and the environment, via…
Click To Tweet

2. Food waste could be reduced

Amazon could use its logistics to revolutionize food distribution and minimize food waste. [Photo credit]

According to NRDC, food waste is responsible for approximately 16 percent of U.S. methane emissions, and in-store food losses can add up to 10 percent of the total food supply at the retail level.

Despite some waste-related challenges with AmazonFresh, Amazon now has an extensive network of real-estate locations to supplement their already massive product distribution network. This means they could expand their existing program to donate to food banks by including Whole Foods’ inventory, too.

Applying Amazon’s logistics platforms to grocery shopping could also mean a bigger demand for “ugly” produce, one of the top sources of waste at the retail level. They could for example deliver ugly produce to consumers at a discount – especially now that the reach for delivery has grown exponentially.

This would be great news for improving food security across the country, meaning less pressure on our agriculture system. This could also result in less pressure to convert lands for farming, thereby keeping important wildlife habitat intact.

Of course, reducing emissions from food waste could all be offset by increased emissions from a growth in home deliveries (given emissions from transportation) and packaging.

3. Consumer demand for transparency will grow

Many consumers had a strong reaction to Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods, immediately vocalizing myriad concerns. At EDF, we believe all consumers should have access to healthy, affordable food that was produced in the most sustainable way possible.

It’s too early to tell if consumers’ concerns will be warranted, but one thing is for sure: Shoppers are paying attention – which will result in a greater demand for transparency and the ability to better dissect food supply chains to ensure that environmental impacts are minimized.

Ideally, this will mean food companies across the board will directly support the farmers growing their products – to help them minimize nutrient runoff, maximize yields, apply proven precision ag technologies or purchase cover crops.

Related:

Why sustainable food can't be a luxury >>

Organic or conventional. Which production system can feed the world sustainably? >>

3 ways NGOs can help sustainable supply chains grow >>

 

The vast majority of the media stories surrounding Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods have focused on how the deal could affect the cost of food, home delivery services, competition in the retail space and our overall shopping experiences. While it’s still too early to predict what exactly Amazon will do with hundreds of new brick and mortar […]

By Maggie Monast

Photo credit: USDA

The vast majority of the media stories surrounding Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods have focused on how the deal could affect the cost of food, home delivery services, competition in the retail space and our overall shopping experiences.

While it’s still too early to predict what exactly Amazon will do with hundreds of new brick and mortar grocery stores, here are three possible implications for farmers and the land they rely on to grow our food.

1. Demand for organic could skyrocket

As of last month, organic products represented more than 5 percent of all grocery sales in the US – and organics have been one of the strongest areas of growth for many retailers and grocery stores.

Now, with Whole Foods under the Amazon umbrella, that demand could increase exponentially. POLITICO noted that if this happens, “domestic organic acreage isn’t positioned to handle such an expansion.”

• Although organic sales have grown rapidly, the amount of organic cropland has remained largely the same.
• The process for farmers to transition to organic requires a three-year transition period, during which products do not earn a premium in the marketplace – thereby limiting the number of farmers willing to make the switch.
• This all means there are limitations for companies looking to secure an adequate supply of organic foods for their customers.

Furthermore, scaling up organic farming is not enough to feed a hungry planet. Organic is an important part of the food system, but it is not a silver bullet leading us to a food-secure world.

On a related note, in all of the buzz about the merger let’s not forget that, as Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel put it, “We need to feed a growing planet. Vegetables aren’t the answer.” That’s why we’re so focused on ensuring that commodity crops are grown sustainably.

3 ways Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods could affect agriculture and the environment, via…
Click To Tweet

2. Food waste could be reduced

Amazon could use its logistics to revolutionize food distribution and minimize food waste. [Photo credit]

According to NRDC, food waste is responsible for approximately 16 percent of U.S. methane emissions, and in-store food losses can add up to 10 percent of the total food supply at the retail level.

Despite some waste-related challenges with AmazonFresh, Amazon now has an extensive network of real-estate locations to supplement their already massive product distribution network. This means they could expand their existing program to donate to food banks by including Whole Foods’ inventory, too.

Applying Amazon’s logistics platforms to grocery shopping could also mean a bigger demand for “ugly” produce, one of the top sources of waste at the retail level. They could for example deliver ugly produce to consumers at a discount – especially now that the reach for delivery has grown exponentially.

This would be great news for improving food security across the country, meaning less pressure on our agriculture system. This could also result in less pressure to convert lands for farming, thereby keeping important wildlife habitat intact.

Of course, reducing emissions from food waste could all be offset by increased emissions from a growth in home deliveries (given emissions from transportation) and packaging.

3. Consumer demand for transparency will grow

Many consumers had a strong reaction to Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods, immediately vocalizing myriad concerns. At EDF, we believe all consumers should have access to healthy, affordable food that was produced in the most sustainable way possible.

It’s too early to tell if consumers’ concerns will be warranted, but one thing is for sure: Shoppers are paying attention – which will result in a greater demand for transparency and the ability to better dissect food supply chains to ensure that environmental impacts are minimized.

Ideally, this will mean food companies across the board will directly support the farmers growing their products – to help them minimize nutrient runoff, maximize yields, apply proven precision ag technologies or purchase cover crops.

Related:

Why sustainable food can't be a luxury >>

Organic or conventional. Which production system can feed the world sustainably? >>

3 ways NGOs can help sustainable supply chains grow >>

 

By: Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

Written by Kerry Trueman

If our current administration’s head-in-the-sand approach to climate change leaves you with a sinking feeling, I’ve got just the book to buoy you. Paul Hawken’s Drawdown declares its wildly ambitious agenda right up front in all caps: “THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVER PROPOSED TO REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING.”

Wait, what?!!! Reverse global warming? Is that even a thing? It could be, if enough of us embrace the proven solutions and promising innovations that Hawken and his coalition of researchers and scientists document in Drawdown.

Paul Hawken

Hawken finds the notion that we can only reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than actually reverse them, simply unacceptable. If you’re driving your car off a cliff, he asks, what good is it to do so at a slower speed?

But aren’t we struggling just to mitigate and adapt to all the unwelcome changes that global warming has already unleashed? This week’s high temperature highlights: the planes in Phoenix unable to depart because of extreme heat; the deadliest wildfire in Portugal’s history, which was apparently started by a phenomenon called a ‘dry thunderstorm,’ which occurs in extreme heat; the toxic air alert issued in London in the wake of soaring temperatures that brought dangerously high ozone levels to much of England and Wales.

And the Gulf Coast is bracing for tropical storm Cindy, set to kick off an early start to a hurricane season that forecasters are warning could be unusually severe.

Plus, there’s this week’s installment of Swamped!, the unreality show we can’t turn off, starring the fossil fuel industry’s dutiful deniers: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s apparent attempt to purge the EPA’s advisory board of pesky scientists who want to, you know, protect the environment; Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s climate denial declaration that ‘the primary control knob’ turning up the heat “is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in,’ even as he lays the groundwork to slash funding for renewable energy programs and promotes nuclear power as a wiser allocation of resources.

Alarmed? You’re not alone. Millions of people all over the world share your concerns. Hawken believes that together, we have the means to reduce and potentially even reverse global warming, even if our President and his policy advisors aren’t on board. Drawdown is a campaign to harness that energy and channel it into a movement that will flow right past the stone-faced stonewallers. Who knows, as this current gains strength, it may even erode their resistance. But either way, the naysayers can’t stop the forces of nature and her allies.

Drawdown leapt onto the New York Times top ten bestseller list in its first week of release, validating Hawken’s belief that a positive, idealistic approach to this potentially overwhelming crisis is the best way to address it. He characterizes global warming not “as an inevitability, but as an invitation to build, innovate, and effect change.”

The Project Drawdown campaign invites you to join this global community of passionate, visionary individuals who’ve got an astonishing range of ideas on how we can tackle our climate crisis, no matter where we live or who governs us. Even if you just leaf (or scroll) casually through the list of amazing breakthroughs that Hawken and his Drawdown colleagues have so painstakingly compiled and ranked according to their potential effectiveness, you can’t help being inspired and encouraged by all these ‘silver bb’s.’ It makes for a surprisingly fun and fascinating read.

Lego (yes, the toy company) is doing wind power in Liverpool? The French have invented photovoltaic pavement? More universal solutions we can all adopt include limiting food waste and embracing a plant-based diet, which Drawdown ranks as the 3rd and 4th most powerful strategies to reduce our emissions. Drawdown provides an extensive list of agriculture-related climate change solutions being developed or already in use all over the world that we can encourage through our food choices.

One of the most unexpected conclusions of the Drawdown researchers was that the empowerment of women and girls through family planning and education rank as the 6th and 7th most effective solutions.

Why is this? In developing nations in particular, women are the “stewards & managers of food, soil, trees, and water.” How we utilize these resources plays an integral role in determining whether we are contributing to, or reducing, our carbon footprint. As Drawdown notes, “the barriers are real, but so are the solutions.”

Closer to home, women have experienced a level of attempted disenfranchisement under the new administration that is deeply disconcerting. Drawdown’s findings only add an additional incentive to be vigilant on behalf of women and girls everywhere.

I apologize to Hawken for comparing Drawdown’s list of solutions to silver bb’s. Hawken is explicitly anti-hawkish; he’d rather avoid all ammo metaphors, including, presumably, the proverbial, eternally elusive ‘silver bullet’ that so many people seem to be waiting for as the mercury and the oceans rise.

Hawken thinks framing these challenges as a battle does nothing to engage people who aren’t already on board, and it may even alienate potential allies. How do we enlist more conservatives to help us move forward and transcend turbulence on this front? (I’m using the term ‘front’ as in ‘weather front,’ not ‘battlefront.’)

Drawdown points out that the Latin root of “conserve” means “to keep together.” A true conservative, then, would presumably want to keep this planet we all share from being torn apart by greed, ignorance or fear. Or rendered uninhabitable, as it may be in a few generations if we don’t take action now.

In the book’s introduction, Tom Steyer, the philanthropist and founder of NextGen Climate, describes Project Drawdown as “a road map with a moral compass.” It’s hard to know where this country is headed, but I’d love to see Drawdown steer millions more of us onto Hawken’s hopeful highway. Traffic jam? Bring it on! We could get out of our cars and dance, a la La La land. Doesn’t that beat feeling defeated?

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Mark Brownstein

The questions the EPA Inspector General appears to be interested in are ones that have been widely and publicly addressed over the past three years, including in peer-reviewed scientific literature. For reference, see our blog posts from here (December 9, 2016), here (June 9, 2016), and here (March 9, 2015).

The most important thing to understand is that there is an extensive body of scientific research, including substantial research produced just over the last four years documenting the significant problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, of which the two studies cited in the IG letter are just a small part. Together, this body of research presents a clear and compelling picture of the magnitude of the methane emissions problem and the urgent need for action to address it.

For example, EDF has helped organize 16 different research projects looking at emissions from on the ground and in the air. So far 33 peer-reviewed papers have been published on those projects. More than 35 different research institutions and over 120 individual co-authors have been involved in the work published to date.

(It’s worth noting that the two studies mentioned by the Inspector General were carried out with the cooperation and collaboration of several major oil and gas producers, including Anadarko, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Encana, Pioneer, Shell, Statoil, Southwestern Energy and XTO.)

The central principle of our methane research efforts has been to examine the question from as many angles as possible, using the fullest possible suite of methods and technologies, precisely in order to see where the results were mutually reinforcing, and where differences might point to the need for additional study.

The picture developed from dozens of scientific studies published since the initial UT study was released encompasses a diverse range of measurement techniques, both top-down and bottom-up, that have also been cross-compared with one another.

Bottom line: It is clear that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too high – higher than EPA had long estimated, and that strong regulations are necessary to reduce them. What’s more, these emissions are frequently accompanied by smog-forming contaminants, toxic benzene – all of which further underscores the urgency of action.

Fortunately, research has also shown just how effective these solutions can be when properly implemented. We look forward to continuing to work with the federal government, the states and other stakeholders to reduce harmful methane emissions.