Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts

Sunday, June 8, 2014

My meeting with the Editor

I met with the Editor of my State's largest newspaper last Thursday. Our meeting lasted 15 to 20 minutes. I told him about Citizens Climate Lobby, our mission, and how we started a local chapter this past winter. I gave him an overview of our proposed carbon fee and dividend legislation.

He wanted to clarify that it was a federal level legislative proposal.  He also asked if we were doing anything on the state or local level since the paper likes to stay local in its focus. I told him we have discussed it briefly, but have not come up with a State plan so far. We are currently focusing on the national level just as CCL does. I mentioned that will be watching the bill that is being passed around for discussion that would allow states to create their own carbon taxes.

He asked what do we do since we already have a progressive group of representatives for Vermont who already acknowledge climate change and agree something should be done. I mentioned that even though they are already allies there still more we can do to nudge them in the right direction towards carbon fee and dividend. I also mentioned that Sanders-Boxer climate change bill, proposed in 2013, and how it is the closest bill any politician has proposed to our fee and dividend, we are very happy that it was introduced, but we feel it could be tweaked to be more effective and accepted by both sides of the aisle. 


I also mentioned that, if passed, the carbon fee and dividend would negate the need for the new EPA rules, which would be another selling point for conservatives. Love or hate conservatives--we need them on board for this. I will note that I am very happy that President Obama is using his Executive power to do something about CO2 emissions (though more action is severely needed!)

 
He asked why was it so important that it was 100% revenue neutral. I said that it is important because it returns money to households to pay for the pass-through costs, and it doesn't expand government so that makes it more appealing to conservatives. Also, under
 this plan 2/3 of all households would break even or receive more in their dividend checks than they would pay in higher prices due to the fee, thereby protecting the poor and middle class. 

I highlighted how CCL just commissioned the REMI* Report (which is officially being released today 6/9/14) that shows a carbon fee and dividend as we propose would actually add 2.2 million jobs to the economy over 10 years and reduce emissions by 33%, and 2.8 million jobs and 52% reductions after 20 years. The report found that making it 100% revenue neutral will also increase the real-income of American households even after accounting for inflation. In an era of a shrinking middle-class and record corporate profits, this is good news.

He asked me why was I involved with this group and there were so many other groups that I could be involved in. I answered that Citizens Climate Lobby brings in policy experts, economists, climate scientists and others to contribute to the discussion. They are also the only group with a clear proposal for how to fix the climate crisis, and have just commissioned the REMI study to show that it would actually work! We are fighting FOR something, not just against. The "personal empowerment" portion of the mission is also why it's such an attractive organization. It inspires hope. You don't just have to sit at home feeling scared about climate change. I wish I had thought to say it when I was at the meeting, but before joining CCL there's no way I would've ever considered scheduling a meeting with the editor to talk climate change! or co-sign a letter to the Senate Finance Committee and then forward it to all of my members of Congress as a co-signer. CCL gives you the expertise and the tools to make politicians listen.

He asked more about the makeup of our group. I said that we have a core group of 6-8 very active members, and more members who are interested in our work but less active at this at this time. I noted that we are a group of concerned citizens, purely volunteers, we meet at a member's house to work on this. We do not have membership fees or a budget. I personally do this because I am a stay-at-home mom concerned about her two little kids and what their futures will be in the time of global warming. I do this in my spare time after the kids are in bed.
 

I think he was impressed or maybe even moved. I asked if he would do an editorial endorsing our carbon fee and dividend proposal. That very day he had published an editorial he wrote in support of the new EPA rules.  The paper does so few editorials each month, and since they like to stay with a very local focus, he didn't know if he could do another one so soon on climate change. He said he would think about it. He also said he would pass on the press packet I gave to him to a reporter. Look for it in newspapers around the country this week!


*REMI is a well-respected economic modeling group that is hired by State and Federal governmental offices in the US and around the world to analyze the economic implications of new policies.



Saturday, September 28, 2013

What EVERYONE should know: Climate Change, the IPCC, & The Price ofCarbon Pollution

Since climate change was my main reason for starting this blog, let's talk about the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC operates under the umbrella of the United Nations and its purpose is "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts."

Last week the IPCC released their 5th report on climate change. Here are the biggest conclusions:
  •  Scientists say global warming is "unequivocal." They report with 95% certainty that human activities are responsible for the increase in global average temperatures since 1950. This is up from 90% certainty in the last IPCC report.
  • Humanity can emit 1 trillion tons of CO2 in order to keep warming below 2 degrees celsius (3.6 degrees Farhenheit), which is what they say is needed to avoid the most catastophic effects of climate change. We have already emitted more than half of that through burning fossil fuels and destroying forests and other ecosystems.
  • At this rate, we will reach 1 trillion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by 2040.
But don't just take my word for it. You can read the IPCC report summary yourself to get more facts, figures, statistics and trends, or consider reading this Grist article. Also read this amusing, yet factual BuzzFeed post which responds to many of the lies that "deniers" cling to in order to confuse people into thinking that climate change is not real or dangerous. If you are totally new to climate science read my laymans summary.


Why should we worry about climate change? Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London summed it up nicely for BBC News when he said, "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment." Well, I certainly don't want my children to suffer the consequences either, and I know this is a common sentiment among parents and grandparents around the country and the world. Let's not beat around the bush: runaway climate change threatens most life on earth. Maybe the cockroaches will be fine.

Americans are not worried enough about climate change. That needs to change. We should have more people marching in the streets demanding action from our politicians. We need more individuals to divest from fossil fuels, invest in renewables, and reduce their own carbon footprint. I have shared with you what my family has done so far, but we all need to become fossil fuel free, ASAP. 100%.

We can't do it alone as concerned individuals though. The most effective way to drastically reduce CO2 emissions at this time is to put a price on carbon. Make polliters pay. I will explore this more in future posts, but to get you started, watch this:




Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Similarities in Parenting & Env. Policy Making

Parenting and environmental policy making have some striking similarities. Trying to mold and guide your children can be much like trying to mold and guide a state, country, or even the international community to protect the environment. Here's why:


COMMAND & CONTROL

Policy making: Command and Control is when the government tells an industry what objective they must meet, and can penalize an industry for its failure to comply. For example, the 1989 Montreal Protocol established specific targets to reduce the use gases that depleted the ozone layer. This forced the refrigerant industry to come up with new, safer gases for refrigeration. It is considered by many to be the most successful international treaty because it was ratified by 197 countries and has been continually revised and made more stringent. 


Parenting: I use command and control with my kids when I tell my son that his post-bath bedtime routine starts at 7:00 pm. The objective is to get him in his bed, tucked in with lights out by 7:30. If he is stalling too much I can penalize him by threatening to reduce the number of books we read before lights out. He only rarely has ever lost a storybook.

Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher - 2 champions of the Montreal Protocol

CAP & TRADE
 
Policy making: Cap and Trade is a policy tool that sets an upper limit on a type of pollutant but gives sources of that pollutant some flexibility on how they comply. One of the most successful examples is the Acid Rain Program which set a time-decreasing cap on how much sulfur dioxide coal powered plants could emit. Plants could buy and sell available permits based on their needs. This created an incentive to find ways to reduce their emissions, and allows plants that could easily reduce their emissions to sell excess permits to plants that were slower to innovate.

Parenting: I cooked some noodles for dinner because it seems that is all my kids ever want to eat. Well, that and fruit. But one night my daughter was so hungry that she ate all her noodles and asked for more. Sadly, the pot was empty and the only noodles left were in her brother's bowl. She asked him for some of his noodles, and thankfully, he was happy to share, at least that night. I had a finite number of noodles and they had to work it out between themselves how to divvy them up. But unlike sulfur dioxide emission permits, I won't be decreasing the noodle supply at dinner.


VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

Policy making: Governments institute voluntary programs when their regulatory capacity is weak Governments therefore make it optional for affected parties to comply and provide incentives for them to do so. One example here in Vermont is the Home Performance with Energy Star program. It's a voluntary program for homeowners to better insulate their homes, thus improving their efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. The program offers grants to homeowners to reduce the overall cost of insulating their homes. My family participated in this program and it significantly reduced the cost of the project.

Parenting:  Voluntary programs, when it comes to parenting, are helpful when you enthusiastically suggest to your 3 year old, "Let's pick up the playroom!" then he screams "No!"  You spend a moment asking with him  again as he repeatedly says, "No! I wouldn't!" So you wrack your brain on how to get him to listen to you, then with a bit of desperation say, "If you help me clean up I will give you some chocolate chips!" Suddenly he is willing to pick up at least a little.

 
My son trying to recreate his standard retort "No, I wouldn't!"
He's smiling too much though.



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)

Policy making: An EIS is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for development projects that "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." EIS reports are supposed to identify plausible alternatives for proposed projects and determine which alternative would have the least negative impact. A rather notorious EIS in today's media is for the Keystone XL pipeline, which is supposed to carry tar sands from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico where it will then be shipped to Asian markets. The pipeline is controversial for many reasons, but two reasons are 1) because of how dirty and destructive tar sands are, and 2) the impact it will have on climate change. The latest investigation of the Keystone XL pipeline EIS is whether the consultant who performed the study had a conflict of interest because they have consulted for oil companies in the past. Ideally, the EIS should be objective, and truly informative about whether a project should be pursued or not, and how. It also provides a sounding board for the public and other interest groups to weigh in.

Parenting: In this case, your child is the equivalent of "the environment" and we as parents are constantly taking stock of our choices and alternatives and considering whether we are creating the best possible outcomes for our child. Am I too strict? Too lenient? Should I sign her up for x,y,z? How can I get him to eat more vegetables? What do I do about tantrums? When should she start potty training? We contemplate the various strategies we have seen in practice or read about and pick the best option for us. All the while we get advice and input from friends, our own parents, and even strangers when we are in public--whether welcome or not.

So there you have it. Policy is not that unlike parenting.

Like what you read? Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

Monday, September 2, 2013

What's All the Fuss About Solar Net-Metering?

In Vermont, and nationwide, a controversy is stirring over rooftop solar net-metering. Net-metering is a program offered by utilities that allows homeowners with solar panel systems to sell excess power they generate back to the utility ($0.20/kwh). Net-metered customers who use the same amount of electricity that they generate can zero out their bill, or even carry credits (to be used within 1 year).

The problem with net-metering, according to utilities, is that traditional customers end up subsidizing net-metered customers. Net-metered customers can zero out their annual bills by generating the same amount the power they use, and therefore don't end up paying fees to support line maintenance and efficiency programs by Efficiency Vermont--a nonprofit that helps increase energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Just recently Vermont Electric Co-op's CEO said that traditional customers are cross-subsidizing net-metered customers by paying 40% of the costs incurred by net-metered customers to the transmission system (source).

Both Vermont Electric Co-op and Hardwick Electric Department have halted new solar net-meter installations. Both utilities are already getting 4% of their capacity from net-metered customers, as is the benchmark determined in 30 V.S.A. § 219a. Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric Department are two larger utilities in the state that have not yet reached the 4% target and are not yet feeling the pinch. Washington Electric Co-op based in East Montpelier reached 6% in July, and though they have not halted new net-metering, they are slowing the impact of solar by limiting new solar PV systems to 5 kilowatt hours (source).

The real "problem" is that solar initiatives have worked and made it a real player in the energy market, so the entire utility industry is experiencing growing pains. So how about solutions? As much as I think there should be solar panels on every rooftop, it is true that someone still has to pay for the lines the electricity travels on. Even solar customers rely on the transmission lines to make their service work. The issue is that regardless of where the power is generated it still has to travel the grid so it can flow to wherever the need is. Maybe it would be reasonable to impose a "transmission lines maintenance fee" as a line item on everyone's power bills that can not be zeroed out through net-metering. Net-metered solar customers still rely on the transmission lines as much as other customers. I am a net-metered customer at VEC and don't think this would be an unreasonable proposal if done wisely.

The basic business model on which utility companies thrived for decades is being threatened by renewable energy and that's why distributors such as Vermont Electric Co-op are getting nervous. Consider Germany as the standard for localized renewable energy (solar and other sources). Individuals there own half of the country's 53,000 megawatts of renewable energy (source). They have made it work, but it has forced the downsizing of traditional utilities and the closure of fossil fuel plants (source and source). This is scary for utilities I'm sure, but business is business, they either have to embrace renewables, or die off.

In the age of man-made climate change from CO2 emissions, localized renewable energy sources are the future. If Germany can do it, Vermont and the rest of the United States can make it work too. Vermont is known for having progressive energy policies which have allowed us to be 9th in the nation for solar power per capita, (source). Truly, 4% net-metered solar power is not a huge amount of total capacity. The Vermont utilities that have forced this issue at least seem like they are willing to come to the table and work for a positive solution--they are not "anti-solar" per se. I hope Vermont Legislators will tackle this problem honestly during their next session and expand the role of solar energy in this Green Mountain State.


******        ******      ******      ******      ******      ******      ******
Are you passionate about solar power? Ask Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin to push for an expansion of the popular "net metering" law that's driving Vermont's solar revolution: http://www.vpirg.org/news/fight-for-your-right-to-go-renewable/