The government of the United Kingdom has reported record-breaking numbers in electricity generation from renewable energy sources. According to the report, renewables, with wind energy in the lead, now account for almost a third of the electricity generated in the U.K.
FUTURISM — Renewable energy is lighting up the United Kingdom. This year alone, it’s set all sort of records, using all types of measurements. Back in May, the U.K. National Grid said that solar energy met 24 percent of the nation’s electricity demand, setting a new record. Then, in July, renewables — solar, wind, and nuclear energy — teamed up to provide more electricity than coal and gas combined, setting yet another record. Now, the U.K. government has said that almost a third of the country’s electricity during the second quarter (Q2) of 2017 came from renewable energy. “Renewables’ share of electricity generation was a record 29.8 percent in 2017 Q2, up 4.4 percentage points on the share in 2016 Q2, reflecting both increased wind capacity and wind speeds, as well as lower overall electricity generation,” according to a recent government report. POWERING THE FUTURE Renewable energy didn’t get this popular overnight, clearly. The U.K. has been improving its renewable infrastructure for the past couple of years. The recent report noted that renewables’ overall capacity increased to 38.0 GW by the end of the first half of 2017. Much of this increase comes from onshore wind power plants, which produced 50 percent more energy over 2016’s Q2 figure, while offshore wind increased by 22 percent. Emma Pinchbeck, director of industry at nonprofit RenewableUK, was, of course, delighted with these latest figures. “It’s terrific to see that nearly a third of the U.K.’s electricity is now being generated by renewables, with wind power leading the way,” she said, according to The Independent. The appeal of renewables isn’t limited to clean energy and a cleaner environment. Equally promising is how renewables are improving people’s lives, which Pinchbeck also noted: “The U.K.’s renewable energy sector is an industrial success story, attracting investment, creating new jobs, and powering our economy.” Hopefully, this success inspires more nations to follow the U.K.’s lead in embracing renewable energy.
0 Comments
While his competitors wait for diesel to restart generators knocked out by Hurricane Maria, flower grower Hector Santiago is already back in business because of solar panels powering his 40-acre (16.2-hectare) nursery in central Puerto Rico.
BARRANQUITAS, Puerto Rico (Reuters) - The U.S. territory is in a near blackout, its electricity grid shredded by the storm that slammed into the island on Sept 20. But Santiago’s decorative plant and poinsettia nursery, set amid the jagged peaks of the Barranquitas farming area, has kept working thanks to the $300,000 he invested in 244 solar panels six years ago. “Everybody told me I was crazy. Now I have power and they don‘t,” said Santiago, whose flowers are sold in Puerto Rico, at outlets like Costco, and throughout the Caribbean. While Santiago’s nursery was considerably damaged during the storm, many plants were destroyed and the roofs of some greenhouses blew off, he was able to regroup quickly, with electricity to keep pumping water from his two wells. On Tuesday, as U.S. President Donald Trump surveyed damage elsewhere on Puerto Rico, some of the nursery’s 19 employees were busy repotting damaged plants and cleaning up. SOLAR OPPORTUNITY Santiago’s experience has left him hoping that Puerto Rico will begin relying more on solar power and other renewable energy as it looks to fix its damaged grid. That view has gained traction among some Puerto Rican politicians, though it is probably unlikely in the short run given the need to restore power as quickly as possible. The experience of people like Santiago could drive more individuals and businesses to invest in solar power. Henry Pichardo, who runs a solar installation firm in the city of Bayamon, thinks the storm could drive up his business 20 percent a year. He said he has been inundated with enquiries since the hurricane hit. “People are going to become more conscious of how they are living, and invest more in solar,” he said. Santiago’s business requires a high amount of energy. From May through August, he lights his greenhouses with a total of 2,520 electric bulbs from 10 pm to 2 am to stimulate plant growth. Until Maria, Santiago sold excess electricity generated by his six by three foot wide panels back to Puerto Rico’s now-defunct grid. In the storm, however, 25 percent of the panels were damaged by flying debris. Still, he said, that was enough to keep the power on, and the nursery did not “have to worry about trees falling on the power lines.” After more than a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future.
WIRED — That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023. That product onslaught puts the company at the forefront of an increasingly large crowd of automakers proclaiming the age of electricity and promising to move away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. In recent months, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Jaguar Land Rover have announced similar moves. GM’s declaration, though, is particularly noteworthy because it’s among the very largest automakers on the planet. It sold 10 million cars last year, ranging from pickups to SUVs to urban runabouts. “General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.” Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles. To be sure, GM’s sudden jolt of electricity is planned with its shareholders in mind. The Trump Administration may be moving to roll back fuel efficiency requirements in the US, but the rest of the world is insisting on an electric age. France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway have all said they plan to ban the sale of gas and diesel cars in the coming decades. More importantly, China—the world’s largest car market—and India, a rising star, plan to join them. No automaker can compete globally without a compelling stable of electric cars. GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million). The crucial question for the American automaker will be how, exactly, to make money from all these cars. By one report, GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt it sells. Reuss’ strategy hinges on bringing costs down thanks to steadily dropping battery prices, more efficient motors, and lighter cars. Massive scale and global supply chains helps, too. “This next generation will be profitable,” he says. “End of story.” It's not impossible. “If they’ve really been laying this groundwork, they could be closer to not just having this tech but having a profitable and high volume way of supplying it," says Karl Brauer, an auto industry analyst with Kelley Blue Book. General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility. Its invention of the automatic starter helped kill the first wave of electric cars at the start of the 20th century. This is the company that experimented with battery power in the EV-1, only to recall the two-seater from its owners, crush them all, and pile the carcasses up in a junkyard. In the first years of the 21st century, while Toyota was making hybrids popular with the Prius, GM was hawking the Hummer. Over the past decade, the Detroit giant has positioned itself for a different sort of future. First came the hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Then came GM’s great coup, the Chevy Bolt, the 200-mile, $30,000 electric car that hit market long before Tesla’s Model 3. GM is seriously pursuing semi-autonomousand fully driverless cars. It offers the first car on US roads with vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability. Now, it talks about its plans to eliminate vehicle pollution, congestion, and traffic deaths. “GM has the ability to get all of us to that future so much faster,” Reuss says. Now it just has to deliver—and make enough money doing it to stick around for that future. With the price of solar panels dropping, more people are opening up to the idea of installing renewable energy in their homes and businesses to help offset electric costs. NEWS ADVANCE — Among them is James LaPrade, president of BMS Direct in Lynchburg. LaPrade had solar panels installed on the roofs of his business last year, and those panels now supply about half of BMS Direct’s electricity. “I’m a big fan of renewable energy,” he said. When installed, solar panels absorb the sun’s rays and convert it into electricity. While the savings and environmental benefits from using solar power can be an attractive investment, prospective buyers must weigh those advantages against whether their property receives enough sunlight to make solar power viable. When LaPrade built his home 10 years ago, he installed solar hot water and said he has seen savings from that over the years. When an opportunity came to do something similar at his office, LaPrade jumped on it. The 80,000-square-foot facility that employs 72 people has a fully open roof with more than 900 solar panels on it. The initial installation last year at BMS involved 722 panels placed on the roof, and this year another 200 were added. Before installing the panels the office’s electric bills were anywhere from $6,000 to $9,000 per month. The panels will pay off themselves within six years. “My intention is to keep adding on each year until I can maximize my roof space,” LaPrade said. “There is about 40 percent of the roof remaining.” LaPrade hired Affordable Energy Concepts Inc. in Madison Heights. “The cost of solar has dropped dramatically over the past five years primarily due to technology improvements and the supply and demand for solar,” Affordable Energy Concepts Owner David Wall said. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, there were 26,000 Virginia homes powered by solar as of Sept. 12, and there has been a 55 percent price decline in solar over the past five years. Matthew Brady, director of business development for Lynchburg-based New Dominion Solar, said increased electricity costs and the public’s greater awareness of solar power have contributed to its popularity. In this March 2017 file photo, Vinny Armpriester of Sigora Solar prepares to install a solar panel at a home in Henrico County. Photo by Mark Gormus/Richmond Times-Dispatch
New Dominion Solar, which opened last year, works mostly in the residential market but is hoping to break into commercial soon. Brady said using solar panels can replace homeowners’ and businesses’ power bills. Financing is available for solar panels, and in Virginia, those with solar panels are eligible for a 30% federal solar investment tax credit. With the tax credit, the net cost of a $20,000 solar installation would be $14,000, with $6,000 returned during the tax season. Aaron Sutch, program director of Virginia Sun, a nonprofit that helps communities go solar across Virginia and advocates for fair solar policies across the state, said Virginians want solar power and they don’t want their options blocked. He explained there are several regulations from the General Assembly, one being that third-party leases aren’t allowed. “For example, if a business doesn’t have the money to buy the panels upfront, but a third party offers to own the panels and sell the electricity, that isn’t allowed,” Sutch said. This can be done in Washington, D.C. and in Maryland. Stand-by charges exist from Appalachian Power and are billed to the customer if their system uses over 10 kilowatts of alternating current or AC. . An average residential installation totals around 5 kilowatts. Appalachian Power Company serves about 500,000 customers in its Virginia territory, APCo spokesman John Shepelwich said. It has about 750 customers in its net metering program, which allows the customer to install and use solar generators on their property for their own use while remaining attached to the Appalachian Power grid. All APCo customers pay a monthly service charge which is less than $9. That covers meter reading, billing and account servicing. Others who get some of their power from solar power also receive the monthly service fee and might also receive a stand-by charge if they use over 10 kilowatts of the generation capabilities. Those charges range from about $5 to $75. Those using solar aren’t completely going “off the grid,” Shepelwich said. They are still connected to the utility, which has to have a plan for those customers if their system goes down or power goes out. “Six hours a day [solar] may be generating power for them; the rest comes from us. We still have to have the infrastructure available, power system, transformers and people available to fix all of that stuff,” he said. “That’s still part of the formula. We’re providing that service. It has to be covered in some way.” He said APCo is in a middle ground of moving toward a new world of distributed generation. “As things go along, this will get worked out as we move forward with a renewable energy as the price comes down.” Sutch said companies such as APCo are preventing solar from taking off even more. “Monopoly utilities are blocking access for market options for their customers because solar is a disruptive technology to their business model that hasn’t had to change in decades,” Sutch said. Sutch said the charges “unfairly target solar producers.” Wall said he wants the regulations to stay fair so solar companies can continue working. “We need fair regulations and fair fee structures; if they do that, we will see the economy grow,” he said. After price, the biggest factor when looking at residential is how much sunlight a property gets. Wall said a home or business should go solar if they have 15 percent or less shade coverage. Brady said it is rare for New Dominion Solar to turn anyone down due to shade coverage on a roof. “We can usually figure out a way to make it work,” he said. “We go to extreme lengths to make it work, but we have had to say no to a few.” LaPrade, of BMS Direct, enjoys his savings from his solar investment and the warranties on the equipment, which last 15 to 20 years. “It’s a long-term product that is producing,” he said. LaPrade said one of the biggest benefits is the federal tax credit, and because his business is placed in an enterprise zone, he can take advantage of infrastructure improvement credits through local and state programs. “I’m very happy with what we’ve done,” he said. “We feel we are being a good steward of our environment and I think the project we put on here is really helping to educate the public and others about renewable energy. I feel this is our future.” While his competitors wait for diesel to restart generators knocked out by Hurricane Maria, flower grower Hector Santiago is already back in business because of solar panels powering his 40-acre (16.2-hectare) nursery in central Puerto Rico.
BARRANQUITAS, Puerto Rico (Reuters) - The U.S. territory is in a near blackout, its electricity grid shredded by the storm that slammed into the island on Sept 20. But Santiago’s decorative plant and poinsettia nursery, set amid the jagged peaks of the Barranquitas farming area, has kept working thanks to the $300,000 he invested in 244 solar panels six years ago. “Everybody told me I was crazy because it was so expensive. Now I have power and they don‘t,” said Santiago, whose flowers are sold in Puerto Rico, at outlets like Costco, and throughout the Caribbean. While Santiago’s nursery was considerably damaged during the storm, many plants were destroyed and the roofs of some greenhouses blew off, he was able to regroup quickly, with electricity to keep pumping water from his two wells. On Tuesday, as U.S. President Donald Trump surveyed damage elsewhere on Puerto Rico, some of the nursery’s 19 employees were busy repotting damaged plants and cleaning up. SOLAR OPPORTUNITY Santiago’s experience has left him hoping that Puerto Rico will begin relying more on solar power and other renewable energy as it looks to fix its damaged grid. That view has gained traction among some Puerto Rican politicians, though it is probably unlikely in the short run given the need to restore power as quickly as possible. The experience of people like Santiago could drive more individuals and businesses to invest in solar power. Henry Pichardo, who runs a solar installation firm in the city of Bayamon, thinks the storm could drive up his business 20 percent a year. He said he has been inundated with enquiries since the hurricane hit. “People are going to become more conscious of how they are living, and invest more in solar,” he said. Santiago’s business requires a high amount of energy. From May through August, he lights his greenhouses with a total of 2,520 electric bulbs from 10 pm to 2 am to stimulate plant growth. Until Maria, Santiago sold excess electricity generated by his six by three foot wide panels back to Puerto Rico’s now-defunct grid. In the storm, however, 25 percent of the panels were damaged by flying debris. Still, he said, that was enough to keep the power on, and the nursery did not “have to worry about trees falling on the power lines.” After more than a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future.
WIRED — That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023. That product onslaught puts the company at the forefront of an increasingly large crowd of automakers proclaiming the age of electricity and promising to move away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. In recent months, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Jaguar Land Rover have announced similar moves. GM’s declaration, though, is particularly noteworthy because it’s among the very largest automakers on the planet. It sold 10 million cars last year, ranging from pickups to SUVs to urban runabouts. “General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.” Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles. To be sure, GM’s sudden jolt of electricity is planned with its shareholders in mind. The Trump Administration may be moving to roll back fuel efficiency requirements in the US, but the rest of the world is insisting on an electric age. France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway have all said they plan to ban the sale of gas and diesel cars in the coming decades. More importantly, China—the world’s largest car market—and India, a rising star, plan to join them. No automaker can compete globally without a compelling stable of electric cars. GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million). The crucial question for the American automaker will be how, exactly, to make money from all these cars. By one report, GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt it sells. Reuss’ strategy hinges on bringing costs down thanks to steadily dropping battery prices, more efficient motors, and lighter cars. Massive scale and global supply chains helps, too. “This next generation will be profitable,” he says. “End of story.” It's not impossible. “If they’ve really been laying this groundwork, they could be closer to not just having this tech but having a profitable and high volume way of supplying it," says Karl Brauer, an auto industry analyst with Kelley Blue Book. General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility. Its invention of the automatic starter helped kill the first wave of electric cars at the start of the 20th century. This is the company that experimented with battery power in the EV-1, only to recall the two-seater from its owners, crush them all, and pile the carcasses up in a junkyard. In the first years of the 21st century, while Toyota was making hybrids popular with the Prius, GM was hawking the Hummer. Over the past decade, the Detroit giant has positioned itself for a different sort of future. First came the hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Then came GM’s great coup, the Chevy Bolt, the 200-mile, $30,000 electric car that hit market long before Tesla’s Model 3. GM is seriously pursuing semi-autonomousand fully driverless cars. It offers the first car on US roads with vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability. Now, it talks about its plans to eliminate vehicle pollution, congestion, and traffic deaths. “GM has the ability to get all of us to that future so much faster,” Reuss says. Now it just has to deliver—and make enough money doing it to stick around for that future. New data published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) shows that global CO2 emissions remained static in 2016. This proves that human intervention makes a difference — and that we can't let up now. FUTURISM — Offering a much-needed sign that human actions can be effective against climate change, new data published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) shows that global CO2 emissions largely remained static in 2016. All major emitters worldwide, except India, stayed stagnant or fell in their CO2 emissions, due to increased use of renewables and decreased coal use; the US and Russia saw about a two percent decrease, while China, European Union states, and other G20 member emissions remained static. Other nations, mainly developing countries, still have rising CO2 emissions levels. However, even static emission levels mean that massive amounts of CO2 are being dumped into the atmosphere annually; more than 35 billion tons were released in 2016 alone. This CO2 is responsible for warmer ocean and air temperatures, plus more extreme, damaging weather, from droughts to hurricanes. Moreover, other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere—particularly methane, from agriculture and the oil and gas industries—rose by 1 percent in 2016. According to the report, total greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase by about 0.5% globally. NEAA chief researcher Jos Olivier cautioned The Guardian: “There is no guarantee that CO2 emissions will from now on be flat or descending.” Still, following the near-halt in emissions seen in 2014 and 2015, even as the world economy continued to grow, this development is encouraging. Experts in China, for example, say their own coal burning has peaked, and the same is likely true in other major emissions nations. Image Credit: NEAA
London School of Economics climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern told The Guardian: “However, all countries have to accelerate their emissions reductions if the Paris goals are to be met. We can now see clearly that the transition to a low-carbon economy is at the heart of the story of poverty reduction and of the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” THE LONG GLOBAL HAUL This flattening of CO2 emissions in 2016 is proof that humans can make a difference when it comes to climate change. It also offers evidence that if we do not take steps to reduce emissions, they will continue to increase; they only stopped rising after a groundswell of public opinion pushed for change. China continues to lead the world in its plans to clean up the environment. A Chinese expert recently announced that electric and hybrid cars will dominate the Chinese market by 2030. The Chinese government has begun building a large-scale carbon capture and storage plant, the first of eight. China also continues to be a world leader in renewable energy. Meanwhile, despite a lack of federal support, major cities in the US are taking action on their own. New York City has announced ambitious new fossil fuel caps for thousands of buildings. San Francisco’s public transit system will be eliminating fossil fuels by 2045. Atlanta plans to use 100 percent renewables by 2035, and Chicago wants to get there by 2025. However, effective, collective action remains critical; positive news should not lull us into a false sense of security. Under Scott Pruitt’s EPA, fossil fuel companies are no longer going to be required to release information about their greenhouse gas emissions. Research from the Center for American Progress (CAP) cites the aggressive action that China is taking as embodying the kind of commitment required to effectively fight climate change. In other words, we need to get up to speed, too—all of us. The fossil fuel industry is fighting for its survival. Though it may not look like it, it's starting to lose.
THE DAILY BEAST — At the moment, much of the world’s wealth is controlled by Baby Boomers. That’s quickly changing, however. As more and more members of this generation retire or pass away, their wealth—over $40 trillion globally—is being transferred to Millennials. With that transfer comes a completely different perspective on capitalism. “This new socially conscious generation of 80 million strong,” a 2014 report from Brady Capital Research noted, “will be looking to invest in innovative companies that are disrupting the status quo and doing social good.” Many of its members desire an economic system that heals the planet rather than profiting from its demise. As Millennials ascend to positions of power in society over the next few decades, the Brady Capital report went on, their worldview will be “an influential force on corporate America and Wall Street.” At the same time, the financial risks of destroying the planet are growing. Carbon Tracker has estimated that if and when governments take serious steps to limit global warming to relatively safe levels, more than $300 billion worth of oil, coal, and gas reserves could become effectively worthless. In the meantime, such investments are becoming less and less socially acceptable—a trend that Morgan Stanley, for one, has attributed directly to student-led fossil fuel divestment movements. “Though divestment has a mixed track record as an investment strategy, it often leads to increasing public pressure to take regulatory action,” the bank concluded. “It has sparked a robust debate among investors about how to address fossil fuel risk in their portfolios.” The Divest campaign, started in 2012 at Harvard University by students like Chloe Maxmin, immediately forced school administrations into a debate about the morality of the fossil fuel industry. “It’s simplistic but it’s true: Are you going to keep investing in an industry that is literally destroying our planet, and everything we love and care about, or are you going to take a stand and chart a new course?” Chloe later explained. “The choice defines the person or institution.” All those local choices, and the student-led actions that caused them, were then amplified by the larger divestment movement. They became plot points in a developing story. “It’s an inherently empowering framework,” she said. Divestment provided a powerful outlet for young people’s frustration with the world’s political and corporate leadership. In an era of gridlock and polarization, it let students take direct action on their campuses against a very clear target: their school’s fossil fuel investments. By 2015, Divest Harvard wasn’t only making a moral argument; it was making an increasingly strong economic one. In the final months of 2014, a global oversupply of oil caused the price to plummet from $100 a barrel to less than $50. In 2015 it would fall a further 30 percent. With it went the earnings of the planet’s largest oil companies. ExxonMobil, for one, saw its revenues drop by $26 billion. Its rival Chevron lost $14 billion over the same time period. Fortune magazine warned of “major disruptions in the oil industry in the near future.” At the same time, clean energy investment soared. A study called Tracking the Energy Revolution found that a record $367 billion was invested in clean energy in 2015, almost 50 percent more than in fossil fuels. “It’s clear that clean energy is going mainstream,” its authors concluded. For Chloe and other student activists, the irony was hard to miss. The Harvard administration had argued for years that divesting from fossil fuels would threaten financial returns. But in the spring of 2015, an investment firm called Trillium Asset Management determined that the reverse was true. Plunging oil prices had wiped an estimated $21 million from the school’s endowment. In the meantime, divestment continued to gain global momentum, and it surged even higher in the lead-up to the international climate talks in Paris that December. In early fall the state of California passed legislation requiring its two largest pension funds to sell off investments in coal mining firms. A month later the London School of Economics divested its $140 million endowment from coal and oil sands. Halfway through the climate talks, 350.org calculated the value of these commitments. Since divestment began, institutions worth $3.4 trillion had joined the movement (a number that’s now surpassed $5 trillion). Though it represented only a fraction of global economic activity (about 3 percent), 350.org believed “investors are reading the writing on the wall and dramatically shifting capital away from fossil fuels.” A new status quo was quickly emerging. The Swiss bank UBS agreed. This was “a social movement with legs,” it argued. “Time, youthful energy, and stamina are on the side of the fossil fuel divestment campaign.” A new report warns of a high price tag on the impacts of global warming, from storm damage to health costs. But solutions can provide better value, the authors say. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Extreme weather, made worse by climate change, along with the health impacts of burning fossil fuels, has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion a year over the past ten years, a new report has found And yet this does not include this past month's three major hurricanes or 76 wildfires in nine Western states. Those economic losses alone are estimated to top $300 billion, the report notes. Putting it in perspective, $300 billion is enough money to provide free tuition for the 13.5 million U.S. students enrolled in public colleges and universities for four years. In the coming decade, economic losses from extreme weather combined with the health costs of air pollution spiral upward to at least $360 billion annually, potentially crippling U.S. economic growth, according to this new report, The Economic Case for Climate Action in the United States, published online Thursday by the Universal Ecological Fund “Burning fossil fuels comes at a giant price tag which the U.S. economy cannot afford and not sustain," said Sir Robert Watson, coauthor and director at the U.K's Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. “We want to paint a picture for Americans to illustrate the fact that the costs of not acting on climate change are very significant,” Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told National Geographic. Watson is quick to point out that extreme weather events, including heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts, are not caused by climate change. However, there is no question their intensity and frequency in many cases has been made worse by the fact the entire planet is now 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) hotter, he said in an interview. While a 1.8 degree F (1 degree C) increase may seem small, it’s having a major economic impact on the U.S. According to data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the number of extreme weather events causing at least $1 billion in economic losses has increased more than 400 percent since the 1980s. Some of that increase is due to increased amounts of housing and commercial infrastructure along coastlines. “However that doesn’t account for big increases in the last decade,” Watson said. And much more global warming is coming—3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) temperature by 2050 and even greater warming beyond that—unless bigger cuts in fossil-fuel emissions are made than those promised in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, said Watson. “The impacts of climate change are certainly going to get more than twice as bad,” he said. (Learn more about why this hurricane season has been so catastrophic.) BILLION-DOLLAR WEATHER A chart of the most costly U.S weather disasters shows billion-dollar events have been increasing in recent years. The main reason: more people are living on higher-value properties in vulnerable places, such as coasts. But as the atmosphere warms, scientists expect destructive weather itself to become more common. SEEKING SOLUTIONS The report also looks at low-carbon solutions that can cut emissions and air pollution and benefit the U.S. economy. For instance, doubling the current share of renewable energy could create 500,000 new jobs while substantially cutting the amount of electricity currently generated using coal—improving air quality and reducing health costs. Renewable energy, even when subsidized, will save America billions of dollars, according to the first national study of the future costs and benefits of renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Twenty-nine states have RPS—regulations requiring increased production of energy from renewable energy sources. If existing RPS programs continue unchanged from now until 2050 they’d generate about 40 percent of U.S. electricity and save $97 billion in air pollution health costs and $161 billion in climate damage reductions, the Assessing the Costs and Benefits of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards study found. But if all states meet their Clean Power Plan obligations solely with renewables they’d generate 35 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030 and 49 percent by 2050. The health benefit savings and climate impact cost reductions in this scenario would be over $1.1 trillion. However, the Trump Administration signed an Executive Order calling for a review of the Clean Power Plan last March and the new head of the EPA has told states they no longer have to comply. RPS policies do increase electric system costs and may increase rates in some states but the overall costs are far less than the health benefits and cost reductions, said lead author Ryan Wiser, a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “RPS programs provide a big social benefit to all Americans,” Wiser said in an interview. However, RPS policies are not the most efficient way to reduce fossil fuel use, he added. “Pretty well every economist will tell you that a carbon tax or cap and trade are better.” In the 1980s acid rain air pollution was curbed through a cap and trade program championed by George H.W. Bush. It was the first such program in the world and worked quite well, said Wiser. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO TACKLING EMISSIONS Switching to renewables will also save enormous amounts of freshwater. Electricity generation is the nation’s biggest water user because coal and gas boil large amounts of water to make electricity. If 35 percent of this generation was renewable it would reduce water use enough to meet the needs of 1.9 million homes, according to Wiser’s study. However, the cost benefits of this water savings is not included in the report, nor are other environmental costs and health benefits. The Economic Case for Climate Action report also doesn’t include a number of climate-related losses such as reduced crop yields from drought. Those amounted to $56 billion since 2012. Nor does it include economic losses from health impacts of heat waves or impacts on ecosystems and water resources. “Our report is an under estimate of the real costs of continued use of fossil fuels,” Watson said. “Anything we estimate now is an underestimate,” said Amir Jina of the University of Chicago and co-author of yet another new study looking at impacts of climate change on the U.S. “Climate change is not isolated to small increases in global temperature, but to local impacts to our health and well-being that could be enormous.” SOUTH AND MIDWEST TO BE HARDEST HIT
Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change in the United Statesis a state-of-the-art analysis that projects future costs and benefits county by county based on current and past data. It found counties in states in the South and lower Midwest would be the hardest hit economically without strong action to curb climate change. “The Gulf Coast will take a massive hit. Its exposure to sea-level rise—made worse by potentially stronger hurricanes—poses a major risk to its communities. Increasingly extreme heat will drive up violent crime, slow down workers, amp up air conditioning costs,” said co-author Robert Kopp, director of the Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Rutgers University. Programs like federal flood insurance insulate coastal communities from some of these risks but it means citizens a long way from the coast bear the financial costs. The same applies to disaster relief. Billions of local, state and federal taxpayer dollars will rightly go towards the recovery efforts from the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. However, those monies could have gone elsewhere to grow our economy and that affects every American, said Jina. "What would we have done with this rebuilding money if we didn't have to use it to rebuild?" The study shows that these big storms lower the long-run growth of the U.S. economy and that their economic and human impacts ripple through the country for up to two decades. New Orleans hasn’t fully recovered from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Many small businesses never bounced back. Ten years after the storm the unemployment rate was still higher than pre-Katrina levels. Research shows that after most hurricanes more people tend to rely heavily on unemployment insurance and Medicaid, increasing the strain on those publicly funded programs, Jina said. "The 'hidden costs' of carbon dioxide emissions are no longer hidden, since now we can see them clearly in the data,” he said. FUTURISM — Wright Electric first caught the world’s attention back in March at Y Combinator’s Demo Day W17. As you may have guessed from their name, the American startup wants to develop electric airplanes, an idea that was praised by the head of Y Combinator’s accelerator program. Wright Electric’s idea is to develop an all-electric aircraft that’s capable of ferrying passengers for short flights —like those from New York to Boston, London to Paris, or Seoul to Jeju. This goal aligns with those of low-cost British airline easyJet, and today, the company announced a partnership between the two organizations. “A collaboration with U.S. company Wright Electric will support the goal for short-haul flights to be operated by all-electric planes,” easyJet noted in a press release. “Wright Electric has set itself the challenge of building an all-electric commercial passenger jet capable of flying passengers across easyJet’s U.K. and European network within a decade.” The British budget airline has reportedly been working with Wright Electric since March, providing the startup with guidance on designs and operations, according to Wright Electric co-founder Jeffery Engler. CUTTING DOWN COSTS, SAVING THE WORLD Short-haul flights account for 30 percent of all flights and 50 percent of regional flights. As Engler previously pointed out, that’s a $26 billion market. Electric airplanes that wouldn’t need jet fuel would mean even cheaper flights for a budget airline like easyJet. “For the first time in my career, I can envisage a future without jet fuel, and we are excited to be part of it,” easyJet CEO Carolyn McCall told Electrek. “It is now more a matter of when, not if, a short-haul electric plane will fly.” Back in March, Wright Electric revealed their plans for an all-electric commercial aircraft called the Wright One. The plane would be capable of ferrying 150 people on flights under 480 kilometers (300 miles). That’s roughly equivalent to the abilities of a Boeing 737. The only difference would be that the Wright One is battery powered.
Although air transport contributes only 9 percent of carbon emissions in the U.S., having all-electric airplanes for short-haul flights would be most welcome. In the fight to decrease our global carbon footprint, we’ll take all the wins we can get. |
James Ramos,BPII'm your go to solar energy expert here to guide you step-by-step through all of your solar options. Categories |
James The Solar Energy Expert