Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. On February 24th, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, calling on all government agencies to recommend regulations for “potential repeal, replacement, or modification.” As of this writing, EPA has received 46,050 comments on its regulatory reform process. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these […]

By Lindsay McCormick

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

On February 24th, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, calling on all government agencies to recommend regulations for “potential repeal, replacement, or modification.” As of this writing, EPA has received 46,050 comments on its regulatory reform process. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these comments come from individuals across the country voicing their support for strengthening EPA’s regulatory protections, demonstrating that Americans stand strong in their opposition to regulatory roadblocks and rollbacks.

In compliance with this executive order, EPA held a stakeholder meeting last week to identify “regulatory reform” opportunities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The irony – and absurdity – of this process is that not even a year ago, Congress passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, sweeping reforms to TSCA, finally providing EPA with new tools and authority to review and manage chemicals more effectively. The need for a credible regulatory agency—one able to make timely, independent, science-based decisions about chemical safety—was seen by all parties as essential to increase public confidence in the safety of chemicals. Under-regulation, not over-regulation, has been the clear problem in this arena for decades. 

EDF has submitted comments addressing the impact of this anti-regulatory process on implementing TSCA. EDF’s comments specifically address four actions that EPA has initiated or recently taken that are now under attack:

1. EPA recently proposed bans – for the first time in nearly 30 years – of high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: trichloroethylene, dichloromethane, and N-methylpyrrolidone. Congress specifically authorized EPA to take these early actions to demonstrate that the new law was working. EDF has urged EPA leadership to follow and act on the science – which clearly points to the unreasonable risks of these chemicals – and not allow companies with a vested interest in these toxic chemicals to use this anti-regulatory process to derail these critical health protections. (You, too, can urge EPA to do so, here.)
2. Prior to TSCA reform, hundreds of new chemicals were allowed on the market every year without any demonstration that they were safe. Over the past year, EPA has made major improvements to its New Chemicals Review Program. However, some industry representatives are now attacking the program based on false assertions and are suggesting actions that are inconsistent with the law. Our comments address these claims.
3. The Lautenberg Act mandates that EPA develop three “framework” procedural rules to establish a robust system to identify, review, and manage chemicals already in commerce. The rules are required to be finalized by June (one year after the law’s enactment).  All three were proposed in January, and have gone through public comment. We strongly oppose consideration of these rules in the regulatory reform process: Not only are these rules mandated by law and not yet finalized, but stakeholders have been provided ample opportunity to comment on the rules, including on opportunities to create efficiencies.
4. In January, EPA finalized a TSCA section 8 nanomaterial reporting rule after more than a decade of delay. The rule will finally allow EPA to obtain basic risk-relevant information on such Nanomaterials often exhibit unique properties that can allow for novel applications, but those same properties also present the potential for novel or enhanced negative impacts on health or the environment. We have strongly urged EPA to retain and not further delay this rule, as such information has been identified by numerous expert bodies as essential to understand and manage their potential risks.

The agency is just starting to implement the new system mandated by Congress to better protect the public’s health from toxic chemical exposures. Taking anti-regulatory aim at TSCA’s vital new protections will only further undermine public and market confidence in EPA and do nothing to provide the stability that the business community sought through TSCA reform.

 

We invite those interested in weighing in on behalf of protecting health and the environment to submit their own comments (feel free to use our comments as a resource). EPA is accepting comments to the docket until May 15th.

 

 

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. On February 24th, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, calling on all government agencies to recommend regulations for “potential repeal, replacement, or modification.” As of this writing, EPA has received 46,050 comments on its regulatory reform process. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these […]

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post was written by Jennifer Marlon, Eric Fine and Anthony Leiserowitz for Yale Climate Communication:

In December 2015, officials from 197 countries (nearly every country in the world) met in Paris at the United Nations Climate Change Conference and negotiated a global agreement to limit global warming. On Earth Day, April 2016, the U.S. and 174 other countries signed the agreement, with most of the others following suit since then.

Politico has reported that senior White House advisors will be meeting this Tuesday, May 9, “in a last-ditch effort to bridge the internal divide over the Paris climate change agreement”.

What do American voters in the U.S. and in every state think about U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement? And what do Trump voters think?

1. A majority of Americans in every state say the U.S. should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement. 

Using methods developed for the Yale Climate Opinion Maps, we find that a majority of Americans in every state say that the United States should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement.

2. By a more than 5 to 1 margin, voters say the U.S. should participate in the Paris Agreement.

In a nationally representative survey conducted after the election, we found that seven in ten registered voters (69%) say the U.S. should participate in the COP21 agreement, compared with only 13% who say the U.S. should not. Majorities of Democrats (86%) and Independents (61%), and half of Republicans (51%) say the U.S. should participate (including 73% of moderate/liberal Republicans). Only conservative Republicans are split, with marginally more saying the U.S. should participate (40%) than saying we should not participate (34%).

3. About half of Trump voters say the U.S. should participate in the Paris Agreement.

Almost half of Trump’s voters (47%) say the U.S. should participate in the Paris agreement, compared with only 28% who say the U.S. should not.

Will President Trump side with the nationalists on his advisory team who want to withdraw from the Paris Agreement? Or will he side with the moderates, including his family members, a majority of Americans, majorities in every state, and a plurality of his own voters, who want the U.S. to continue to participate in the Paris Agreement? This decision may be an important turning point in the future history of Earth.

To learn more about the methods used in this analysis, please visit the post here.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR HEALTH FROM AIR AND CLIMATE POLLUTION

The Trump administration has already cancelled or sought to undermine 23 rules that protect our health and environment – including limits on toxic waste coal companies dump in rivers, and regulations promoting more fuel-efficient cars.

But the administration is hungry for more, so it’s asked companies, trade associations and lobbyists to suggest other rules they’d like the president to roll back.

Part of this wish-list process is being done in public and some, of course, is happening in private meetings. Rules from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has a whole “wish list” docket of its own, seem to be a particular target.

Here are five of the most brazen industry wishes submitted so far:

1. Coal tar: Trade association wants to end health studies

The Pavement Coatings and Technology Council – a trade association for the paving industry – doesn’t want research into the health dangers of the black top on which your children play foursquare.

It also doesn’t want the government to study the impact of coal tar on “freshwater sediment contamination, indoor air quality, ambient air quality, and effects on aquatic species.” 

2. Leaky oil and gas drill sites: Trade groups don’t want to fix them

Trade associations representing the oil and gas industry, including The Independent Petroleum Association of America, have filed comments attacking Clean Air Act standards requiring energy producers to take cost-effective steps to reduce methane and other air pollution.

3. Roofing fumes: Companies want no restrictions

The National Roofing Contractors Association, a trade group representing roofing companies, doesn’t want smog-forming chemicals restricted, saying such regulations “have been burdensome to our members.”

4. Cancer-causing lubricants: Manufacturers say they should still be used

No, not that kind of lubricant. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association complained that the newly established chemical safety law may require its members to find replacement products for materials known to cause cancer in humans.

5. Toxic pesticide: Chemical manufacturer wants ban removed

Don’t try to pronounce chlorpyrifos, just know this pesticide hurts kids’ health. That’s what the EPA had concluded last year, and proposed banning it after years of research showing that it causes developmental problems in children and that there are alternatives.

That is, until Pruitt came along, and under pressure from the manufacturer, ignored his own scientists and rejected the proposed ban, saying it needs more study.

Why this wish list should be taken seriously

The Trump administration seems to view all health and environmental safeguards as potentially suspicious. That’s in spite of strong data showing that environmental rules actually help the economy – by preventing illness, missed school days, worker absence, productivity problems and early death.

President Trump, who encountered these safeguards as impediments to building hotels faster and cheaper, promised to rid the government of 75 percent of rules that get in industry’s way.

With an EPA administrator more eager to please his boss than to protect Americans’ health, it’s now our job to fight back and protect our kids.

Tell Congress: Protect and defend our environment

By Suzy Friedman

Whether in agriculture or any other business, if you don’t have enough money coming in to pay the bills, it’s hard to find the time or resources for anything other than working to turn a red budget spreadsheet black.

A wheat farmer friend from Washington recently told me that current prices are $4/bushel, the same as 40 years ago. Take into account inflation, and that’s a significant decline. Nationally, the USDA predicts that net farm income will drop by almost 9 percent this year, the fourth year in a row of declines after reaching a record high in 2013. Farmers also face enormous volatility in income, with fluctuations in yield, demand, as well as crop and input prices.

It’s no surprise then that environmentalists’ calls to cut crop insurance, disaster programs or other conservation payments fall on deaf ears in the agricultural community – or serve only to raise blood pressure levels across the Corn Belt.

Advocating for sustainability from an ivory tower will never get us anywhere. If we really want to see farmers embrace conservation practices, doing so needs to add value to them and make it easier, not harder, to make a living. Faced with economic uncertainty, it’s human nature to protect family above all else – even if it means choosing short term benefits over stewardship.

Conservation depends on farm profitability, says @FriedmanSuzy @GrowingReturns. Here's…
Click To Tweet

Conservation can protect profits

Environmentalists should invest in creating the business case for sustainable agriculture.

EDF understands the economic challenges that farmers face, and we support approaches and programs that protect farm income and profitability. Yes, our mission is to protect natural resources such as water quality and climate stability – and we will advocate for the environment no matter who is in office. But when it comes to sustainable farming, we believe the most effective way to get results is to take into account economic viability.

It's also important to note that conservation is not inherently a drain on the balance sheet for agriculture. In fact, the opposite is true when taking an integrated and multi-year view of farm management and profitability.

Contentious debates on Capitol Hill often skip over the valuable role conservation measures can play in protecting farm profits. Practices like using nutrients more efficiently enable farmers to get more bushels per pound of fertilizer. This is a win-win, with farmers getting more value out of the inputs they buy and less fertilizer ending up in the air or water.

Cover crops, more diverse crop rotations, and reduced tillage can deliver more consistent and thus higher yields over time. These practices reduce the negative yield impacts of weather extremes like this weekend’s loss of winter wheat from heavy snowfall in Kansas, improve soil quality, and reduce soil erosion, weeds and pests.

A long-time farmer and advisor to EDF recently told me that by digging into the economics of crop management systems and sustainability practices, he discovered that conservation is a method of profit protection. And this profit protection really shines through if you look at the data for practices in combination and over multiple years.

We need more data and proof

But right now, we cannot sufficiently document conservation’s ability to protect profits. We need a lot more data on the economics of different conservation practices across key geographies. Instead of pointing fingers and lobbying for cuts to programs that support farmers, environmentalists can and should invest in creating the business case for sustainable agriculture.

Gathering these data won’t happen overnight, but we’re working on it, as are many others, including the National Corn Growers Association’s Soil Health Partnership, the Conservation Technology Information Center, and many university programs.

Our ability to continue enjoying a diversity and abundance of food depends on the economic viability of farming.

This post originally appeared Ag Web and is used with permission.

Related:

There's good reason to end the agriculture versus the environment fight >>

Farmers' voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let's listen up. >>

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs >>

By Suzy Friedman

Whether in agriculture or any other business, if you don’t have enough money coming in to pay the bills, it’s hard to find the time or resources for anything other than working to turn a red budget spreadsheet black.

A wheat farmer friend from Washington recently told me that current prices are $4/bushel, the same as 40 years ago. Take into account inflation, and that’s a significant decline. Nationally, the USDA predicts that net farm income will drop by almost 9 percent this year, the fourth year in a row of declines after reaching a record high in 2013. Farmers also face enormous volatility in income, with fluctuations in yield, demand, as well as crop and input prices.

It’s no surprise then that environmentalists’ calls to cut crop insurance, disaster programs or other conservation payments fall on deaf ears in the agricultural community – or serve only to raise blood pressure levels across the Corn Belt.

Advocating for sustainability from an ivory tower will never get us anywhere. If we really want to see farmers embrace conservation practices, doing so needs to add value to them and make it easier, not harder, to make a living. Faced with economic uncertainty, it’s human nature to protect family above all else – even if it means choosing short term benefits over stewardship.

Conservation depends on farm profitability, says @FriedmanSuzy @GrowingReturns. Here's…
Click To Tweet

Conservation can protect profits

Environmentalists should invest in creating the business case for sustainable agriculture.

EDF understands the economic challenges that farmers face, and we support approaches and programs that protect farm income and profitability. Yes, our mission is to protect natural resources such as water quality and climate stability – and we will advocate for the environment no matter who is in office. But when it comes to sustainable farming, we believe the most effective way to get results is to take into account economic viability.

It's also important to note that conservation is not inherently a drain on the balance sheet for agriculture. In fact, the opposite is true when taking an integrated and multi-year view of farm management and profitability.

Contentious debates on Capitol Hill often skip over the valuable role conservation measures can play in protecting farm profits. Practices like using nutrients more efficiently enable farmers to get more bushels per pound of fertilizer. This is a win-win, with farmers getting more value out of the inputs they buy and less fertilizer ending up in the air or water.

Cover crops, more diverse crop rotations, and reduced tillage can deliver more consistent and thus higher yields over time. These practices reduce the negative yield impacts of weather extremes like this weekend’s loss of winter wheat from heavy snowfall in Kansas, improve soil quality, and reduce soil erosion, weeds and pests.

A long-time farmer and advisor to EDF recently told me that by digging into the economics of crop management systems and sustainability practices, he discovered that conservation is a method of profit protection. And this profit protection really shines through if you look at the data for practices in combination and over multiple years.

We need more data and proof

But right now, we cannot sufficiently document conservation’s ability to protect profits. We need a lot more data on the economics of different conservation practices across key geographies. Instead of pointing fingers and lobbying for cuts to programs that support farmers, environmentalists can and should invest in creating the business case for sustainable agriculture.

Gathering these data won’t happen overnight, but we’re working on it, as are many others, including the National Corn Growers Association’s Soil Health Partnership, the Conservation Technology Information Center, and many university programs.

Our ability to continue enjoying a diversity and abundance of food depends on the economic viability of farming.

This post originally appeared Ag Web and is used with permission.

Related:

There's good reason to end the agriculture versus the environment fight >>

Farmers' voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let's listen up. >>

Why Sonny Perdue should prioritize these 3 farm programs >>

By Kate Zerrenner

With summer just around the corner, I – like many Texans – intend to spend as much time as possible in or near water when it’s scorching outside. But, even though we’ve had a wet winter, I can’t help but think of the terrible drought that plagued Texas for years. Just a few short years ago, my dad had to sell his motorboat because there was no water in nearby Lake Travis. Then floods pummeled many parts of Texas, and some of those same lakes are full for the first time in 15 years. And, it’s not just Texas watching the pendulum swing from historic drought to heavy rains.

Following a five-year drought, California’s winter was one of the snowiest and wettest on record. Plus, regions of the Southeast and Northeast have experienced unprecedented droughts recently.

Many fear these extremes are the new normal as climate models suggest drought and floods will be intensified under a changing climate. This data supports why it’s critical to ensure the stability of our future water supply. Fortunately, there is an inextricable link between energy and water that presents untapped opportunities to conserve water.

Known as the energy-water nexus, the link refers to the water embedded in energy and the energy embedded in water. Consider the amount of water it takes to produce and distribute electricity. As well, consider the amount of electricity used to treat, pump, and distribute water. And, while many clean energy resources are virtually water-free, traditional sources—such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas— require a significant amount of water to generate power.

By making strategic choices to maximize energy-water efficiencies, we can help protect our supplies in advance of our next drought. Here are three ways that work:

1. Encourage water utilities to create comprehensive, strategic energy plans: Water utilities need a lot of power to treat and distribute water, as well as operate their facilities, which results in high energy costs. Consequently, high energy use typically connotes high water use. In other words, these utilities are using water to create water. And, since the energy manager is not the one responsible for making bottom-line organizational decisions, there is oftentimes disconnect between departments within a utility.

Creating an Energy Management Plan (EMP), or an organization-wide strategy for energy use, can streamline efforts and identify opportunities and tactics to bring down costs. The EMP is a holistic business approach that puts all of the utility’s departments on track to meet ambitious efficiency goals. The EMP often includes benchmarking to establish an energy baseline, identification of high-energy-use pain points in the system, or even creating a team that will ensure the plan is carried out.

Moreover, the EMP could lead to pairing up with electric utilities to maximize available efficiency opportunities and resources. California is a trailblazer in this type of partnership.

**

2. Increase the use of smart technology: Because of the energy-water nexus, the amount of power every home uses has a specific level of “water intensity,” and, in turn, the water a home uses has a certain level of “energy intensity.” Think of it on a retail level: One’s clothes dryer needs power to run, but that power typically needs water to be created in the first place. On the flip side, it takes a lot of energy to treat and transport water for home irrigation systems.

A recent study from Environmental Defense Fund and Pecan Street gathered first-of-its-kind granular data on the energy and water use of a group of Austin homes. The study revealed some fascinating findings like climate and weather have a big impact on a home’s water footprint: that freezer in your garage is guzzling water, and homes with solar panels saw a nearly 80 percent drop in water intensity.

Smart technology made these findings possible. If utilities want their customers to efficiently manage water use, their customers need the tools to better understand it. Installing smart meters—for both electricity and water—is an important step in the right direction.

**

3. Match water-stressed areas with renewable energy: As noted above, coal, nuclear, and natural gas are very thirsty electricity sources. Wind and solar PV’s water use, on the other hand, is insignificant.

Strategic placement of renewable energy could get the biggest water-savings bang for one’s buck. A recent study funded by Environmental Defense Fund, in collaboration with the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG), mapped water stress and the potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy at 60 of National Guard’s Texas facilities.

By overlaying the water data with renewable energy, the lowest-hanging fruit become clear. For example, Fort Bliss Readiness Center in El Paso has both the highest solar potential and the most extreme category of future water stress. Therefore, Fort Bliss is an ideal candidate for protecting water supplies by installing solar panels.

This kind of mapping could be done throughout the U.S., and the data could help inform more comprehensive energy decisions. In the case of TXARNG, that could mean allowing resources to go to other essentials like training and equipment.

Texas is certainly not the only state to experience drought woes during the past decade, and, with climate change, there’s no doubt that we can expect more drought (and at extreme levels) in the mid- and long-term. By encouraging water utilities to make a strategic energy plan, increasing the use of smart technology, and matching water-stressed regions with clean energy resources, we can take steps now to save our water later.

This post originally appeared on the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation blog. 

With summer just around the corner, I – like many Texans – intend to spend as much time as possible in or near water when it’s scorching outside. But, even though we’ve had a wet winter, I can’t help but think of the terrible drought that plagued Texas for years. Just a few short years […]

By Mark Brownstein

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions.

The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By Mark Brownstein

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions.

The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By Mark Brownstein

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions.

The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By Mark Brownstein

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions.

The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By amymorse

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions. The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By amymorse

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions. The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By Guest Author

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow

Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most.

This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping cities around the world in the fight against climate change – a fight that will only accelerate in the coming years, with cities and municipalities on the front lines.

Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. These urban areas already account for 60-80 percent of energy consumption and 75 percent of carbon emissions, and their impacts will worsen with expansion. Because of their population density, cities are also the most likely to be heavily impacted by water shortages, natural disasters, and heatwaves as climate change progresses.

Smart cities

Understanding how to mitigate these environmental impacts is vital, and the technology that enables cities to be “smart” is a big part of that. Technology can help communities around the world become cleaner, safer, and stronger through connectivity solutions that unlock environmental, social, and economic benefits.

As a provider of Smart Cities technologies, AT&T explores ways to better understand and quantify how technology – and the data insights it generates – can help address these complicated environmental issues. It’s part of the AT&T 2025 goal to enable carbon savings 10 times the carbon footprint of its  operations  by deploying low-carbon technology solutions.

How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter
Click To Tweet

Smart collaboration

Over the summer, we – an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Climate Corps Fellow and an AT&T Smart Cities team member – began working on a methodology to measure and share the sustainability of AT&T’s digital solutions. We took a look at carbon, water, waste, and energy reductions associated with some of the Smart City technologies that we’re deploying in spotlight locales, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Miami-Dade County (FL), Chapel Hill (NC), and Montgomery County (MD).

A single water pipe leak can waste almost 400,000 gallons of water per year. The SCOC enables city managers to catch issues like this before they grow.

We also created a blueprint of a Smart Cities sustainability dashboard that will give city officials and citizens an easy way to understand the key sustainability benefits of this technology. The sustainability component will be a part of the AT&T Smart Cities Operation Center (SCOC), a digital dashboard that utilizes secure connectivity and data analytics to give city officials a window into real-time operations, enabling them to keep tabs on power outages, water leaks, traffic issues, and more – all from one location. For example, a

Technology plays an increasingly critical role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. As AT&T continues to work hand-in-hand with environmental organizations like EDF to calculate the positive impact of Smart Cities technology, we get closer to unlocking its potential to help citizens and the world around us.

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most. This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping […]

By Guest Author

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow

Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most.

This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping cities around the world in the fight against climate change – a fight that will only accelerate in the coming years, with cities and municipalities on the front lines.

Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. These urban areas already account for 60-80 percent of energy consumption and 75 percent of carbon emissions, and their impacts will worsen with expansion. Because of their population density, cities are also the most likely to be heavily impacted by water shortages, natural disasters, and heatwaves as climate change progresses.

Smart cities

Understanding how to mitigate these environmental impacts is vital, and the technology that enables cities to be “smart” is a big part of that. Technology can help communities around the world become cleaner, safer, and stronger through connectivity solutions that unlock environmental, social, and economic benefits.

As a provider of Smart Cities technologies, AT&T explores ways to better understand and quantify how technology – and the data insights it generates – can help address these complicated environmental issues. It’s part of the AT&T 2025 goal to enable carbon savings 10 times the carbon footprint of its  operations  by deploying low-carbon technology solutions.

How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter
Click To Tweet

Smart collaboration

Over the summer, we – an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Climate Corps Fellow and an AT&T Smart Cities team member – began working on a methodology to measure and share the sustainability of AT&T’s digital solutions. We took a look at carbon, water, waste, and energy reductions associated with some of the Smart City technologies that we’re deploying in spotlight locales, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Miami-Dade County (FL), Chapel Hill (NC), and Montgomery County (MD).

A single water pipe leak can waste almost 400,000 gallons of water per year. The SCOC enables city managers to catch issues like this before they grow.

We also created a blueprint of a Smart Cities sustainability dashboard that will give city officials and citizens an easy way to understand the key sustainability benefits of this technology. The sustainability component will be a part of the AT&T Smart Cities Operation Center (SCOC), a digital dashboard that utilizes secure connectivity and data analytics to give city officials a window into real-time operations, enabling them to keep tabs on power outages, water leaks, traffic issues, and more – all from one location. For example, a

Technology plays an increasingly critical role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. As AT&T continues to work hand-in-hand with environmental organizations like EDF to calculate the positive impact of Smart Cities technology, we get closer to unlocking its potential to help citizens and the world around us.

By Guest Author

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow

Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most.

This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping cities around the world in the fight against climate change – a fight that will only accelerate in the coming years, with cities and municipalities on the front lines.

Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. These urban areas already account for 60-80 percent of energy consumption and 75 percent of carbon emissions, and their impacts will worsen with expansion. Because of their population density, cities are also the most likely to be heavily impacted by water shortages, natural disasters, and heatwaves as climate change progresses.

Smart cities

Understanding how to mitigate these environmental impacts is vital, and the technology that enables cities to be “smart” is a big part of that. Technology can help communities around the world become cleaner, safer, and stronger through connectivity solutions that unlock environmental, social, and economic benefits.

As a provider of Smart Cities technologies, AT&T explores ways to better understand and quantify how technology – and the data insights it generates – can help address these complicated environmental issues. It’s part of the AT&T 2025 goal to enable carbon savings 10 times the carbon footprint of its  operations  by deploying low-carbon technology solutions.

How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter
Click To Tweet

Smart collaboration

Over the summer, we – an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Climate Corps Fellow and an AT&T Smart Cities team member – began working on a methodology to measure and share the sustainability of AT&T’s digital solutions. We took a look at carbon, water, waste, and energy reductions associated with some of the Smart City technologies that we’re deploying in spotlight locales, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Miami-Dade County (FL), Chapel Hill (NC), and Montgomery County (MD).

A single water pipe leak can waste almost 400,000 gallons of water per year. The SCOC enables city managers to catch issues like this before they grow.

We also created a blueprint of a Smart Cities sustainability dashboard that will give city officials and citizens an easy way to understand the key sustainability benefits of this technology. The sustainability component will be a part of the AT&T Smart Cities Operation Center (SCOC), a digital dashboard that utilizes secure connectivity and data analytics to give city officials a window into real-time operations, enabling them to keep tabs on power outages, water leaks, traffic issues, and more – all from one location. For example, a

Technology plays an increasingly critical role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. As AT&T continues to work hand-in-hand with environmental organizations like EDF to calculate the positive impact of Smart Cities technology, we get closer to unlocking its potential to help citizens and the world around us.

By Guest Author

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow

Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most.

This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping cities around the world in the fight against climate change – a fight that will only accelerate in the coming years, with cities and municipalities on the front lines.

Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. These urban areas already account for 60-80 percent of energy consumption and 75 percent of carbon emissions, and their impacts will worsen with expansion. Because of their population density, cities are also the most likely to be heavily impacted by water shortages, natural disasters, and heatwaves as climate change progresses.

Smart cities

Understanding how to mitigate these environmental impacts is vital, and the technology that enables cities to be “smart” is a big part of that. Technology can help communities around the world become cleaner, safer, and stronger through connectivity solutions that unlock environmental, social, and economic benefits.

As a provider of Smart Cities technologies, AT&T explores ways to better understand and quantify how technology – and the data insights it generates – can help address these complicated environmental issues. It’s part of the AT&T 2025 goal to enable carbon savings 10 times the carbon footprint of its  operations  by deploying low-carbon technology solutions.

How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter
Click To Tweet

Smart collaboration

Over the summer, we – an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Climate Corps Fellow and an AT&T Smart Cities team member – began working on a methodology to measure and share the sustainability of AT&T’s digital solutions. We took a look at carbon, water, waste, and energy reductions associated with some of the Smart City technologies that we’re deploying in spotlight locales, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Miami-Dade County (FL), Chapel Hill (NC), and Montgomery County (MD).

A single water pipe leak can waste almost 400,000 gallons of water per year. The SCOC enables city managers to catch issues like this before they grow.

We also created a blueprint of a Smart Cities sustainability dashboard that will give city officials and citizens an easy way to understand the key sustainability benefits of this technology. The sustainability component will be a part of the AT&T Smart Cities Operation Center (SCOC), a digital dashboard that utilizes secure connectivity and data analytics to give city officials a window into real-time operations, enabling them to keep tabs on power outages, water leaks, traffic issues, and more – all from one location. For example, a

Technology plays an increasingly critical role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. As AT&T continues to work hand-in-hand with environmental organizations like EDF to calculate the positive impact of Smart Cities technology, we get closer to unlocking its potential to help citizens and the world around us.