Tag Archives: GHG

We Are “Out” of the Paris Accord — Really? What a Year! Signs of Great Progress in the Trump Denial Era

Posted on by
Reply

June 1, 2018

By Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

It was just one year ago – ah,, but it seems much longer…

WASHINGTON — The New York Times – June 1, 2017: “President Trump announced on Thursday that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, weakening efforts to combat global warming and embracing isolationist voices in his White House who argued that the agreement was a pernicious threat to the economy and American sovereignty.

In a speech from the Rose Garden, Mr. Trump said the landmark 2015 pact imposed wildly unfair environmental standards on American businesses and workers. He vowed to stand with the people of the United States against what he called a “draconian” international deal.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the president said, drawing support from members of his Republican Party but widespread condemnation from political leaders, business executives and environmentalists around the globe.”

What was to follow?

A Year of Significant Progress!

Today — interesting perspectives are shared in The Washington Post on where we are one year after President Donald Trump “withdrew” from the Paris Climate Accord. The United States of America is the first – and perhaps will be the only – nation to join and then withdraw the Agreement. Sort of.

Participation in the agreement for the USA runs to year 2020 so we are “still in” (officially).  The withdrawal process will take the next three years.

By that time, there might be a new occupant in the White House. 

This nation is still in by examination of various other factors that are explained by writer Chris Mooney in the WaPo. (He covers climate change, energy and the environment, reported from the Paris negotiations in 2015, and has published four books on the the subjects he covers.)

The key points we took away from Mooney’s excellent wrap up today:

  • The Trump Administration still has no consistent message about climate change,  and no clear policy, except for the antics of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, with his slash & burn attacks on environmental and climate-related regulations.
  • There is a positive development: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine embraced climate science.  (See notes at end.)
  • There has been unrelenting attack on President Barack Obama’s skilled moves to protect the country – and the planet! – such as the Clean Power Plan.
  • But, while the White House is the cheerleader for the coal industry, market forces reward renewable energy and natural gas as powerful drivers for change.
  • Other countries are sticking with the Paris Accord, but some of those countries may find it challenging to stay the course without U.S. leadership (says John Sterman of MIT).

Background:  The Obama Administration agreed in Paris with many other nations to the goals of a 26%-to-28% reduction of emissions below the 2005 levels — and today the U.S. and the whole world is off that metric, writes Chris Mooney.

Even if the commitments were realized, there would be a temperature rise of 3.3 degrees Celsius (almost 6% F) over time (according to MIT’s Sterman). So the USA would have to do even more than agreed-to in Paris. (The USA is the world’s second largest GhG emitter.)

Where are we? According to the Climate Action Tracker produced by NewClimate Institute and Ecofys, the USA is on track for an 11% to 13% decrease by year 2025, which is about halfway to the Obama Administration pledge.

What may interfere: the move to rollback auto fuel efficiency standards; an analysis by Rhodium Group projects adding 100 million tons (annually) by year 2035 for auto emissions alone if the rollbacks move forward.

The good news – from the “We Are Still In” front: the states of Virginia and New Jersey are making moves to cut emissions and the states of Colorado and California are developing new electric vehicle policies.

Vicky Arroyo (director of the Georgetown Climate Center is quoted:   At least we are not losing the momentum that was feared (one year ago today).

Kate Larsen, who directs climate change research at the Rhodium Group, thinks that the country is on track to meet or even exceed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan goals — thanks to the use of lower-cost renewable fuel sources and natural gas.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States are “hardly set to explode” and the country is moving toward lower GhG emissions over time, writes Mooney.

But. What the Trump announcement did last year on June 1 was to create fog about US national policy regarding climate change. The thing we all have to face: the slow progress exhibited and achieving climate change goals (those coming out of Paris) are not compatible.

The WaPo commentary is at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/01/trump-withdrew-from-the-paris-climate-plan-a-year-ago-heres-what-has-changed/?utm_term=.782d3cb38b3f&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Counterpoint!

The EDF – a/k/a Environmental Defense Fund – today trumpeted the Year of Climate Progress (since June 1 2018).

EDF members and environmentalists immediately began the counter-attack in June 2017 and in EDF’s words, that led to a year of extraordinary climate progress. The organization presents a timeline on line.  Highlights:

  • June 5, 2018 – EDF helps launch a coalition of organizations, businesses and state and local civic and political leaders to pledge “We Are Still In!” – today there are 2,700 leaders participating.
  • On to July 2017 – California Governor Jerry Brown signs into law an extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program out to 2030.  The state is the sixth largest economy in all of the world!
  • September – North of the border, Ontario Province links its cap-and-trade program to the California-Quebec carbon market, creating a huge market covering 580 million tons of emissions. Sister province British Columbia intends to increase its carbon tax for April 2018 through 2021.
  • Nine Northeastern US States in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative complete their second program review and agree to reduce emissions by 30% from 2020 to 2030.
  • Halfway around the world in December 2017 China announced its national carbon market (to be largest in the world); this will start with electric power and expand to seven other industrial sectors. (So much for the Trumpian claim China is doing nothing to meet Paris Accord conditions.)
  • We move further into 2018 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejects the DOE coal and nuclear proposal.
  • Despite shouts and threats and Trumpian boasting, the U.S. Congress adopts the 2018 budget in March 2018 that leaves the EPA budget mostly intact (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wanted to cut the agency’s budget by 30%. Other environmental / energy agencies see budget increases.)
  • April – the UN’s International Maritime Organization adopts a climate plan to lower emissions from container ships, bulk and oil carriers, by at least 50% below 2008 levels by 2050.
  • Also in April — In the key industrial State of Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission approves AEP’s Electric Security Plan – this, EDF points out, will enhance and diversify the state economy, unlock millions in funding, provide customers with clean energy options and overall, will reduce pollution.
  • Next door, in April, the Illinois Commerce Commission approves the state’s Long-Term Renewable Resources Procurement Plan to have a pathway for electric utilities to produce 25% of power from renewable sources by 2025 and put incentives in play for development of wind and power.
  • April — EDF President Fred Krupp gives a TED Talk, outlining the plan to launch methane-detecting satellites in orbit above Earth to map and measure oil and gas methane emissions. The data and information gathered will help countries and companies spot problems, identify savings opportunities and measure progress.
  • April sure was a busy month – Canada issued policies to cut oil and gas emissions by 40% to 45% at new and existing facilities. This was part of a pledge made in 2016 (when President Obama was in office) for the USA, Canada and Mexico to decreased such emissions in North America by that amount by 2025.
  • On to May – and recently-elected New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy – a former Goldman Sachs exec – signed into law the plan to cut GhG emissions by almost half by 2030 (hey, that’s twice what the Clean Power Plan would have required!). The Garden State will require 50% of NJ electric needs to be met from renewable sources.
  • And on to May – ExxonMobil announced plans to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 15% and flared gas volume by 25% — worldwide – by 2020.

Yes – a remarkable year, kicked off on June 1st 2017 by a vindictive head of state set on reversing the significant progress made under his predecessors.

But many individuals, companies, investors, civic organizations, NGOs proclaimed: We are still in.  The movement represents city halls, board room, college campuses, investors, and more…interests representing US$6.2 trillion (one-sixth of the entire American economy) have signed on to the We Are Still In declaration — https://www.wearestillin.com/we-are-still-declaration

Have you?

Notes:

The New York Times story by Michael Shear, June 1 2017 is at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html

The American Institute of Physics info on NASA, embrace of climate change consensus: https://www.aip.org/fyi/2018/bridenstine-embraces-nasa-science-climate-change-consensus

We Are Still In information at: https://www.wearestillin.com/

World Bank – G4 Reporting Pioneer!

Posted on by
Reply

559719_615384138487346_109625660_a[1]by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

Stay Tuned to the World Bank – it’s a Pioneer in G4 Sustainability Reporting!

The World Bank, composed of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world.
Since its inception in 1944, the World Bank has expanded from a single institution to a closely associated group of five development institutions.

Their mission evolved from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) as facilitator of post-war reconstruction and development to the present-day mandate of worldwide poverty alleviation in close coordination with their affiliate, the International Development Association, and other members of the World Bank Group: the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Today the institution has a staff of engineers, financial analysts, economists, sector experts, public policy experts, and social scientists.

The newly-endorsed goals of the Bank are to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity by fostering growth at the bottom 40 percent of every country. To accomplish this, the World Bank — operating in over 130 countries around the world — offers its members low interest loans, interest-free credits, and grants as well as a wealth of technical assistance and knowledge sharing.

The World Bank sets an example for its clients and partners in reporting and public accountability.

So it is fitting that one of the first institutions to embrace the new GRI G4 (fourth generation) guidelines would be the World Bank. Spearheading the effort is Monika Kumar, the Bank’s sustainability coordinator. When the report landed on our platform, we reached out to Monika to ask her about the effort – here are highlights of our conversation.

G&A Institute: Monika, congratulations on being one of the first U.S. based institutions to embrace G4 for reporting. What was the experience like, moving from G3.1?

Monika Kumar: We started with the premise that the G4 would be similar to the G3.1, simply with a few additional indicators, but were pleasantly surprised. The emphasis on materiality was something that we had to understand better, and inform our internal stakeholders about. In our preparation, we reviewed each and every one of the Aspects and Indicators to assess the relevance to the World Bank, which falls within this unique mix of a public-financial-development institution. We also had to ensure to link content material to the Bank as a development institution, such as how we address issues of food security in our client countries, with the appropriate GRI indicators.

G&A: How long has the World Bank been reporting?

MK: Our first report was published in 2005, covering our 2004 fiscal year. We began first using G3 and then shifted to G3.1 for our Content Index and over time included the Financial Services and the Public Agencies Sector Supplements. In 2008, we moved to an on-line platform, with a standalone GRI index report where we addressed every GRI indicator, explaining inapplicable indicators where needed. So, every year, we’ve learned from our experience – trying to make our reporting process more efficient and the report more reader friendly.

G&A: Talk about your Materiality process – what is involved?

MK: G4 required that we dedicate a considerable amount of time to carrying out a materiality assessment and disclose that methodology in the specific indicator responses (G4-19-21).

We had to develop a methodology that applied to our development-oriented business model, incorporated feedback from our myriad stakeholder groups (clients, civil society, investors, to name a few), and simultaneously allowed us to determine the sustainability impact of the aspect considered.

We looked at the AA 1000 five-step process, ISO 14001, and the Natural Step process, and then created our own approach to meet our specific needs – one that looks at financial and reputational risk, stakeholder concern, and sustainability impact. This is the first time that we applied the approach and since G4 is so new, we really had no good examples to follow. You will note we have a simplified version of the methodology on our website currently. We hope next year to validate the process and upload a more robust response.

G&A: What’s the worldview of the institution as you prepare your “progress report” for the user base?

MK: Lots of exciting things are happening at the Bank right now. We are undergoing a period of change, one that would help us achieve the two goals we have set: reducing extreme poverty globally to 3 percent by 2030, and boosting incomes for the bottom 40 of the population in developing countries. President Kim has made it clear that sustainability frames these two goals – a sustainable path of development and poverty reduction would be one that: (i) manages the resources of our planet for future generations, (ii) ensures social inclusion, and (iii) adopts fiscally responsible policies that limit future debt burden.

In this effort, addressing climate change is key. We are currently working with 130 countries to take action on climate change—helping cities to adopt green growth strategies and develop resilience to climate change, developing climate-smart agricultural practices, finding innovative ways to improve both energy efficiency and the performance of renewable energies, and assisting governments to reduce fossil fuel subsidies and put in place policies that will eventually lead to a stable price on carbon.

A lot is happening, but I’m really excited that we began tracking the GHG footprint for specific sectors including energy and forestry within our lending portfolio. Within the next three years we expect to be publishing this information – as currently we only report on our corporate carbon footprint – in both our annual sustainability review and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). We are working towards more comprehensive reporting.

This is important, not just for us being a model of a sustainable institution, but also for our stakeholders, especially sustainable and responsible investors who invest in our “green bonds,” that benefit projects related to climate change.

We are proud to say that the World Bank helped start the development of the quickly-expanding green bond market – the program recently reached a milestone of USD 4 billion in issuance, helping create and develop a market that raises funds to support climate activities – one that will support future climate finance.

I’ll stop there and urge the reader to read more about the Bank’s efforts to achieve its ambitious goals in the Sustainability Review online (http://crinfo.worldbank.org).

G&A: Thank you Monika. We will be watching as other financial sector institutions transition to G4 guidelines over the next two years. The World Bank example will be helpful to the financial sector partners, we’re sure.

Footnote: As we prepared this blog post, news came from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that as of November 4, 2013, 84 organizations had signed on to the new initiative – the G4 Pioneers Program. Organizational Stakeholders (OS), organizations that support the GRI, commit to producing a G4 report in their next (reporting) cycle. The program is interactive, and designed to be knowledge-sharing (webinars, focus groups). We will be following the Pioneers and will bring you updates on the program’s progress.

Coal’s Future Getting Darker

Posted on by
Reply

The support for coal  throughout the world is in great flux.  There are negative messages flying about driven by the desire to decrease the impact on climate change and the overall environment by decreasing the use of this high carbon fuel.

Today’s story in Eco Business.com  — Coal at risk as global lenders drop financing on climate  — focuses on the financing of future coal power plants and related coal projects:  “First it was President Barack Obama pledging in June that the government would no longer finance overseas coal plants through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Next it was the World Bank, then the European Investment Bank, dropping support for coal projects. Those banks have pumped more than US$10 billion into such initiatives in the past five years.”  

The Guardian (UK) also has a pointed story that only adds to the confusion.  This gamble on carbon and the climate could trigger a new financial crisis.    “At a time when governments are supposedly preparing for a global climate change deal that will cut carbon emissions, energy multinationals are investing in carbon assets like there’s no tomorrow.”

While the future of coal has been shaky for years, there was no viable cost-effective  substitute until fracking caused the boom in natural gas production.  A classic battle is looming  between efforts to  protect the environment and the loss of an industry and jobs.  While there are deniers, the conflict is growing.U.S. is not waging ‘war on coal’: Energy Secretary Moniz .

Balance these events with efforts by representatives of “coal producing states” fighting for an industry that supplies thousands of jobs in their home communities.  W.Va. entourage meets with new EPA director .  While coal-fired power plants in the US just may go the way of the dinosaurs in the near future. Usage around the world is not expected to decrease as rapidly and might even increase, especially in emerging economies.

The coal issue is a perfect example of  what will become an increasing conflict between a greener more sustainable energy policy and job protection for the status quo.  We will be watching these issues very closely. For coal interests it is not over until it is over!