There is so much more to the “climate crisis” than public opinion, but here it is ...

From the Article of BeyondKona, Hawaii, June 25, 2022

At the end of the first full Supreme Court term with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in place, liberal Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was amazed — and not in a particularly good way — what President George W. Bush’s nominees to the bench had accomplished in such little time.

“It is not often that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said in June 2007.

But that was nothing compared to this week as three Trump-appointed justices, joined their other Republican-majority court justices in firing off two significant decisions in rapid succession. First, a Second Amendment gun rights ruling which flies in the face of rising public concerns over escalating national gun violence now targeting the most innocent of society; children. The Court majority’s second decision was another political win and a shock to many women, a second coming to others in the form of the most significant social ruling in modern times; overturning protections granted women by Roe v. Wade for the nearly 50 years which guaranteed a woman’s fundamental right to health care and abortion.

As significant as these two recent court decisions represent, what’s ahead for this GOP-controlled court will soon affect every American regardless of their sex, race, income, or political party — an environmental climate case now being decided by the Supreme Court. As in the case of the legal dismemberment of Roe v. Wade, this case is the product of a coordinated multiyear strategy led by Republican Attorneys General.

Within days, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could severely limit the federal government’s authority to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants — pollution found to dangerously heat the planet’s climate.

Fossil Fuel Polluters Retaliate

On the front lines of this emerging battle is the case of West Virginia v. EPA, is the result of a coordinated, multi-decade strategy led by Republican Attorneys General, conservative legal activists, and their funders with ties to the oil and coal industries.

The polluter attack strategy is fairly straight forward; use the judicial system to rewrite environmental laws, weakening the executive branch’s ability to tackle global warming.

Coming up through the federal courts are more and more climate cases and headed to Supreme Court, some featuring novel legal arguments, each carefully selected for its potential to block the government’s ability to regulate industries and businesses that produce greenhouse gases. These legal strategies are becoming more and more sophisticated with time and money.

The plaintiffs seek to hem in what they call the “administrative state”, the E.P.A. and other federal agencies who set rules and enforce regulations that affect industrial sectors responsible for the majority of environmental crimes and offenses in which newer regulations are designed to rein in, e.g., global warming emissions, toxic air and water pollution violations, etc.

Congress has barely addressed the issue of climate change. Instead, for decades it has delegated authority to the EPA and other agencies because it lacks the political will, and equally important, the expertise possessed by the specialists who write complicated rules and regulations and who can respond quickly to changing science – a long standing practice now embedded in today’s Capitol Hill gridlock.

Follow the Money, Big Time

The Federalist Society is one of many money sources engaged in attacks on Federal environmental and climate protections. The Society is funded by the likes of Koch Industries, which has long fought and funded climate action roadblocks; the Sarah Scaife Foundation, created by the heirs to the Mellon oil, aluminum and banking fortune; and Chevron, the oil giant and plaintiff in the case that created the so-called “Chevron defense”. After a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, that doctrine holds that courts must defer to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes by federal agencies on the theory that agencies have more expertise than judges and are more accountable to voters. “Judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of the government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his opinion for a unanimous court ruling.

The forthcoming case; West Virginia v. E.P.A., No. 20–1530 on the court docket, is notable for the tangle of connections between the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court justices who will decide their case.

The Republican plaintiffs share many of the same donors behind efforts to nominate and confirm five of the Republicans on the bench — John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“It’s a pincer move,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official. “They are teeing up the attorneys to bring the litigation before the same judges that they handpicked.”

The pattern is repeated in other climate cases filed by the Republican AG’s now advancing through the lower courts: The plaintiffs are supported by the same network of conservative donors who helped former President Donald J. Trump place more than 200 federal judges, many now in position to rule on the climate cases in the coming year.

At least two of the cases feature an unusual approach that demonstrates the aggressive nature of the legal campaign. In those suits, the plaintiffs are challenging regulations or policies that don’t yet exist. They seek to pre-empt efforts by President Biden to deliver on his promise to pivot the country away from fossil fuels, while at the same time aiming to prevent a future president from trying anything similar.

The Stakes for Climate Cases ~ Limitations on action in the United States against global warming could doom global efforts to avert the worst climate disruptions.

Victory for the plaintiffs in these cases would mean:

>>> the federal government could not restrict tailpipe emissions because of vehicles’ impact on climate, even though transportation is the country’s largest source of greenhouse gases.
>>> the government also would not be able to force electric utilities to replace fossil fuel-fired power plants (the second-largest source of planet warming pollution), with wind and solar power, and
>>> executive branch could no longer consider the economic costs of climate change when evaluating whether to approve a new oil pipeline or similar project or environmental rule.

Those limitations on climate action in the United States, which has pumped more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than any other nation, would quite likely doom the world’s goal of cutting enough emissions to keep the planet from heating up more than an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with the preindustrial age.

A temperature rise greater than 1.5 degrees Celsius is the threshold beyond which scientists say the likelihood of catastrophic hurricanes, drought, heat waves and wildfires significantly increases. The Earth has already warmed an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.

“If the Supreme Court uses this as an opportunity to really squash E.P.A.’s ability to regulate on Climate Change, it will seriously impede U.S. progress toward solving the problem,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

But many conservatives say the decision violates the separation of powers by allowing executive branch officials rather than judges to say what the law is. Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote that Chevron allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power.” In other words, elected judges and politicians are more qualified than scientists and agency experts to determine public harm when it comes to climate change and other environmental impacts.

Office of Science to send $7 Billion on various energy projects

From a News Article by Adrian Cho, Science Magazine (AAAS), May 26, 2021

Sometimes a new presidential administration signals where it’s headed through whom it selects to lead a federal research agency. That appears to be the case with President Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) basic research wing, the Director of the Office of Science. Last month Biden tapped Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, a soil scientist at the University of California (UC), Merced, to lead the office, which has a $7 billion annual budget and is best known for funding physics, running national laboratories, and building atom smashers and other scientific megamachines.

The nomination of Berhe, 46, suggests the office will increasingly emphasize research related to climate change, scientists say. Berhe currently studies how factors such as erosion, fire, and temperature affect whether soil soaks up carbon dioxide or releases more of it into the air. She was born and raised in Eritrea.

Announced on 22 April, Berhe’s nomination delighted many environmental researchers. “She’s as star scientist as star scientists get,” says soil ecologist Bala Chaudhary of De- Paul University. Ecologist John Harte of UC Berkeley, who was Berhe’s doctoral adviser, hopes her nomination marks a shift in DOE science from esoteric conceptual problems to addressing the climate crisis. “There will be, I hope, more emphasis on science that relates to the sustainability of the human enterprise as opposed to the mere sustainability of a scientific endeavor,” he says.

Berhe has also long worked for greater diversity in the sciences, says geochemist Peggy O’Day of UC Merced. “She’s been a real leader, both on our campus as well as nationally and internationally, in advocating for people of color in science,” O’Day says. Last year, Berhe and Chaudhary published a paper in PLOS Computational Biology entitled, “Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab.”

But some physicists worry Berhe may have trouble guiding the often-fractious agency, citing her scant experience managing large organizations and her unusual scientific background for a position often held by physicists. According to her CV, Berhe has held one DOE grant for $200,000 and has served as interim associate dean of UC Merced’s graduate division.

As the nation’s single largest funder of the physical sciences, the Office of Science supports six research programs, including fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. Its basic energy sciences program funds chemistry, materials science, and condensed matter physics, and its advanced scientific computing program provides supercomputing for myriad studies. Biological and environmental research get 10.7% of its budget. The office owns 10 of DOE’s 17 national labs and builds big scientific facilities—the newest is a $730 million particle accelerator at Michigan State University.

The director’s job is to set priorities among the competing research programs and coordinate billion-dollar construction projects so that as one nears completion the next is ready to go, says Bill Madia, a nuclear physicist and former director of two national labs. “It’s one of the most important management jobs in science in the world,” he says. “You’re comparing priorities from bioenergy centers to neutrino experiments to exascale computers.”

Given that much of the office’s money goes to physics, Michael Lubell, a physicist at City College of New York and former head of public affairs for the American Physical Society, wonders how, as a biogeochemist, Berhe will approach those decisions. “There’s nothing in her background to suggest that she knows anything about fusion, or particle physics, or nuclear physics, or atomic physics,” he says.

Most past office directors have had a mixture of training in physics, experience running large organizations, and work history with DOE. But that background is not a prerequisite for success, says Raymond Orbach, a theoretical physicist and former chancellor of UC Irvine who directed the office from 2002 to 2009. Orbach won plaudits for, among other things, developing a 20-year to-do list of major projects that DOE has largely followed. But he notes that he, too, was a newcomer to DOE. “One never knows how someone with no prior formal government service (e.g. me) will turn out,” he wrote in an email. The office’s most recent director, Christopher Fall, has a doctorate in neuroscience and had prior management experience at DOE and the Office of Naval Research.

No director has to do it all on her own, notes physicist Cherry Murray of the University of Arizona, who was director from 2015 to 2017. DOE has a corps of staffers who are “incredibly competent” and can help keep the agency humming, she says. “I’m not worried at all about physics research dropping by the wayside” under Berhe, she says. “That will continue, just as under me biology research continued.” Murray says she is curious to see where Berhe will head in setting policy.

If Berhe is confirmed, her success will largely rest with budgetmakers in Congress. For example, even though former President Donald Trump repeatedly tried to slash the office’s budget, Congress increased it by 31% over 4 years. That boost spared Fall from having to make unpopular cuts. If the budget keeps growing, Berhe may enjoy a long honeymoon with DOE-sponsored researchers.

Should budgets tighten, she could face the challenge of retaining the support of the community while picking winners and losers. Berhe has the leadership skills to meet that potential challenge, Harte says. “I would call her steadfast with good humor and an extraordinary thoughtfulness,” he says. “She will gather the respect of others because of her intense intelligence.”

The Green New Deal is good for everyone in the long run

RE: Climate Change, Economic Sustainability and Environmental Preservation

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey just re-introduced the Green New Deal resolution in Congress.

Since this landmark resolution was first introduced two years ago, one thing has become clear: the fight for climate justice can only be won by tackling jobs, justice, and climate. Together.

The Green New Deal is one of the most popular policy proposals in the country. 57% of voters want their members of Congress to co-sponsor the resolution.1 It has inspired countless other bills like the Green New Deal for Public Housing introduced by Sen. Sanders, and the Green New Deal For Cities that Rep. Cori Bush introduced on Monday.

But despite all this, the Green New Deal has yet to pass through Congress. We have a once in a generation opportunity to push forward transformational change through this resolution. The plan for a Green New Deal, and economic, racial, and climate justice is on the table, but it’s up to our grassroots strength to force Congress to act.

Will you sign on as a Grassroots Co-Sponsor of the Green New Deal, and send a message to every Democrat, Republican, and Independent in Congress that we’ve waited long enough and we won’t tolerate inaction any longer?

The Green New Deal is one of the most strongly supported pieces of legislation because people across the country want bold climate action now. Already, over 100 members of Congress signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution, but we need more – and we need bolder action from the White House.

The Biden administration’s current infrastructure plan doesn’t go far enough. $2 trillion over 10 years isn’t enough. We need a minimum of $16 trillion dollars to address the scale of the crisis we are facing.

The Green New Deal makes it clear that we need to transition from fossil fuel jobs to fair, clean energy union jobs that support people and the climate. We can make sure we have a livable planet for future generations if we take action today – if our leaders stand up for people, not profits. If we pass the Green New Deal.

Please add your name now as a Grassroots Co-Sponsor of the Green New Deal. We’ll be in touch with more ways you can help grow support for the Green New Deal and related bills in Congress.

With hope, Team 350

Time is running out ...

From an Article by Tara Lohan, The Revelator, January 11, 2021

Shalanda Baker is currently a professor of law, public policy and urban affairs at Northeastern University and cofounder of the Initiative for Energy Justice, where she works on making the clean energy transition more just. Her new book is “Revolutionary Power, An Activist’s Guide to the Energy Transition,” published this month of January 2021.

The Revelator spoke with Prof. Baker about why we can’t solve our current climate crisis by following the same energy playbook and what it means to put various justice concerns first.

Question: “Energy justice” may be a new term for people. How do you define it?

I feel like it’s helpful to distinguish it from environmental justice as well as climate justice. They’re interrelated and, I think, inextricably intertwined.

We had seen landmark environmental legislation passed in the 1970s which largely failed to address energy distributional concerns and largely left communities of color to fend for themselves through regular civil rights claims to sort out those burdens. And that actually didn’t work out.

So the environmental justice movement continues and on their shoulders is the climate justice movement, which very much recognizes that island communities and other communities in the Global South, as well as environmental justice communities including in the United States, will be the first and worst impacted by climate change.

So they’re really working to create policies that respond to that vulnerability.

But energy justice for me is the most hopeful aspect of this because it’s forward looking. To me, it’s about dreaming and saying, “What system can we create that not only remediates or helps to remediate some of that environmental harm, but can make us less vulnerable in the face of climate change?”

Rooftop solar, batteries, things that allow us to bounce back more quickly in the face of climate change — this hopeful terrain of energy policy that is reflective of energy justice principles is where I like to do my work.

Question: What response do you get when you talk about energy justice now?

If you had asked me that six months ago, I would have said that it’s very hard. No one’s listening, it’s terrible.

But since the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the murder of George Floyd, we have seen this sort of awakening, for lack of a better term, with respect to the multiple layers of oppression and inequality that certain communities face.

We know that communities of color are more likely to be environmental justice communities, breathing in toxic fumes. We know that they’re more likely to experience energy burden, paying more of their overall income to meet basic energy needs. And now we know that they’re more likely to die from a pandemic and that the likelihood of having the worst effects of COVID relates back to the energy system.

So now there’s an opening, there’s an opportunity. Since June there’s really been more of a willingness to learn about this — and not in just the typical places, but with policymakers, with folks from departments of energy around the country and attorneys general offices.

Question: Are there examples of energy justice in action you’ve seen around the country?

One is in New York through the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which was signed into law about a year ago and was very much a product of grassroots advocacy. A coalition called NY Renews made sure that that law included a carve-out for environmental justice communities [requiring] that 35% of climate investments have to go back to those communities.

We see similar things in California with Senate Bill 535, which is essentially a redistribution of the benefits of that state’s cap and trade policy to so-called “disadvantaged communities.”

So there are wins here and there, but we have to keep fighting.

Question: You write in your book about how the goal for many activists has been “climate first, energy justice later.” But you advocate for justice first. Why?

Bringing in the voices of folks who’ve been historically colonized and excluded for hundreds of years is just the morally right thing to do.

But I think more and more, we’re starting to understand that our fates are linked. And we cannot leave behind certain squads of the population in pursuit of our own gains. We have to make sure that they have a voice at the table and are able to bring life to their own vision of what the energy system should look like.

Or else we’ll get kicked by it at the end of the day. We’ll be hit by the realization that we’ve left out this entire segment of the population that can’t pay their electricity bills or that now has to move because of climate change. That will ultimately create substantial social costs down the road.

So for me, it’s about making a stronger society. I really want ordinary folks — our aunts or uncles, our friends who are not in energy or environmental law and policy — to engage with these ideas and to see the ways in which energy is such an intimate part of our lives.

I want people to get curious and begin to organize around a just energy future. And to also maybe even get a little upset about the deep injustice that is embedded into not just the fossil fuel system — because that’s a story we know — but into this clean energy transition, where we are not only replicating but in some ways exacerbating inequality.

>>> Tara Lohanis is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.

The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was established at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP-26) is set for Glasgow in November 2021

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

Finally, we engaged millions of people in the work for climate justice. Let’s be clear: None of this was easy. As we sit here in 2030, the clean and just energy future that we’ve built together has been the result of millions of people stepping up in their own states and communities.

I know all this seemed impossible back in 2020, when it felt as if everything was falling apart and our climate might be doomed. But everything we did mattered. All of it.

We now know that we’re going to keep global temperature rise below the dangerous tipping points that climate scientists warned us about a decade ago.

We can look our kids in the eye and tell them that we didn’t let them down. Now we can watch their dreams unfold.

As all our great spiritual traditions have taught us, new beginnings are often born during our most difficult days. We created something beautiful out of those hard days in 2020.

Of course we have more work to do. But we’re doing that work from a foundation we built together. I can’t wait to see what we’ll do next.

££ This concludes this Article series here on FrackCheckWV.net.

This Article appeared in the January/February edition of SIERRA with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

#####. #####. #####. #####. #####.

See also: Paris Climate Agreement Q&A | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions …. What happens next?

The negotiations on the Paris rulebook at COP 24 proved in some ways more challenging than those leading to the Paris Agreement as parties faced a mix of technical and political challenges and, in some respects, higher stakes in seeking to elaborate the agreement’s broad provisions through detailed guidance. Delegates adopted rules and procedures on mitigation, transparency, adaptation, finance, periodic stocktakes, and other Paris provisions. But they were unable to agree on rules for Article 6, which provides for voluntary cooperation among parties in implementing their NDCs, including through the use of market-based approaches.

Instead, parties deferred those decisions to COP 25.

In September 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres convened a climate summit in New York to rally countries to higher ambition in 2020. The world’s largest emitters failed to present substantive plans for greater emissions reductions but 65 countries expressed their intention to enhance their NDCs by the end of 2020. With the launch of a “Climate Ambition Alliance,” 66 countries announced their intention to develop plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

A marathon COP 25 was held in Madrid, Spain, from December 2 to December 15, 2019, with Chile retaining the presidency. Governments reaffirmed a prior call for parties to reflect “their highest possible ambition” when presenting a new round of NDCs in 2020, but they failed again to adopt rules for international carbon trading under Article 6, the last major piece of the “rulebook” for implementing the Paris Agreement. Additionally, vulnerable developing countries expressed growing exasperation at the scarce resources available to them to cope with worsening climate impacts.

Due to the impacts of the global novel coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the UNFCCC postponed most of its major climate meetings until 2021, including COP 26. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected countries’ efforts to put forward the new or enhanced NDCs due in 2020.

On December 12, 2020, the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the UN, France, and the UK, co-hosted a virtual global climate summit, the Climate Ambition Summit.

The UK currently plans to host COP 26 from November 1-12, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.

Michelle Rotellini, Beckley-Raleigh County Chamber of Commerce, promotes solar project

From an Article by Jessica Farrish, Beckley Register Herald, September 1, 2020

Raleigh County Commission, on a 2-1 vote, welcomed the county’s first solar farm, a decision that was backed by Beckley-Raleigh County Chamber of Commerce.

Raleigh Commission President David Tolliver and Commissioner Ron Hedrick voted in favor of a resolution to permit Raleigh Solar, a company formed in West Virginia in 2018 by Dakota Renewable Energy of Denver, to pay the county based on the amount of electricity the farm generated, with Commissioner Linda Epling voting against it.

The original agreement had offered only $1.4 million to the county, but Tolliver, Raleigh Sheriff Scott Van Meter and Raleigh Assessor Linda Sumner had rejected that offer. The approved version on Tuesday was an increase of $600,000, with Van Meter saying he would have liked to have seen the county receive more in the agreement.

Raleigh Solar is responsible, under the agreement, for treating the soil and for putting up a bond to disassemble all the panels, once the 15 years are past.

During the Tuesday meeting, Tolliver reported that there had been a change to the amount of money that the county would receive over a 20-year period. The county is now set to receive $2 million under the plan.

The Raleigh Commission agreed to accept the Dakota offer of just over $2 million for 20 years, or about $600,000 more than the original offer, said Tolliver.

Raleigh Solar signed an agreement to purchase about 600 acres on Grandview Road where it plans to place 1,000 solar panels, if favorable tax incentives are granted, according to Tolliver. A portion of the land is leased.

The agreement that Commission approved on Tuesday has no bearing on the location of the farm. The Raleigh Board of Zoning and Appeals must approve the location, Tolliver said.

Under county code, the agreement had to be approved by the Raleigh Assessor and Raleigh Sheriff, who is the treasurer of the county. Raleigh Assessor Sumner and Sheriff Van Meter both approved the resolution during the Tuesday meeting.

“I’ve talked to a lot of people over this, and I struggled a little, but I’m going to vote yes,” said Van Meter. “Because $2 million extra dollars for 20 years, I can’t leave on the table. “I’d like to have got more for the county, for sure, but I’ll vote yes.”

Raleigh Solar must now present the resolution to the Raleigh Board of Education for approval. Raleigh County Schools receives 78 percent of the funds. Raleigh Schools Superintendent David Price does not vote on the agreement, as was previously reported.

Commissioner Epling’s husband, Beckley businessman Doug Epling, had opposed the plan to allow a solar energy farm to come into the county without paying taxes. Doug Epling, who has interests in coal, had said that while he is in favor of diversifying energy resources in the county and is not “against” solar energy, he disagreed with the tax breaks that are being extended to solar energy, which could potentially cut local coal jobs.

Historically, West Virginia is a coal mining state. State lawmakers recently passed legislation that makes the state friendlier to solar farms but has not yet made explicit laws to allow purchase power agreements (PPA) in the state. A PPA would allow a solar energy company to erect panels on private property, at little or no cost to the property owner. Power generated would be available to the property owner, at a rate that would reduce the owner’s monthly power bill, and any additional generated power would be sold by the company.

Days prior to the Commission vote, Raleigh Chamber had issued a statement in support of diversification of the economy and the solar farm, with Chamber CEO Michelle Rotellini and Beaver Coal Co. General Manager Joe Bevel both voicing support of solar farm plans.

Rotellini pointed out that a diverse economy is a factor that helps attract Fortune 500 companies to a region.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Raleigh Chamber supports solar farm, Beckley Register Herald, August 29, 2020

“In conclusion, the BRCCC supports an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy options to ensure the future economic growth of Beckley-Raleigh County and all of Southern West Virginia.”

According to information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal-fired power plants accounted for 92 percent of West Virginia’s electricity net generation in 2018. Renewable energy resources — primarily hydroelectric power and wind energy — contributed 5.3 percent and natural gas provided 2.1 percent.

The West Virginia Legislature in March passed a solar energy bill, a step toward diversifying the state’s energy portfolio. The law created a program that encourages the development of solar energy in the state.

According to statements by attorney Roger Hunter, who represented Raleigh Solar during an Aug. 18 public meeting, the estimated total construction cost for the solar farm is more than $90 million.

... take me home down country roads ...

Article from Staff Reports, Charleston Gazette Mail, September 22, 2020

A Citizens Guide to Climate Change, a 16-page report on the impending climate crisis and summaries of potential solutions proposed to counter it, has been released by the newly formed West Virginia Climate Alliance.

“This guide is the beginning of a dialog with West Virginians,” said Charleston’s Perry Bryant, a member of the Alliance. “Regardless of who wins the election this November, climate change legislation is likely to be considered in 2021. West Virginians need to understand the range of options for addressing climate change and how these options will affect our state and its people.”

Strategies under consideration for mitigating the effects of climate change are covered in the guide, including carbon fees and taxes, cap-and-trade pricing for carbon, fuel economy standards and tax incentives for low-carbon technologies. Key components of the Green New Deal are also discussed.

According to the guide’s introduction, information used in its compilation is “scientifically valid,” and relies heavily on research from government agencies. The guide was produced for “people who are concerned about climate change and want more information.”

“We’re noticing more West Virginians seeking to have a better understanding of climate change,” said Angie Rosser, director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, one of the groups that make up the West Virginia Climate Alliance. “It’s a complex issue with many implications for our state, and this guide is a starting point for people to become more informed.”

In West Virginia, climate change may have played a role in deadly flooding in June 2016, caused by a downpour severe enough to be expected only once in 1,000 years, according to the guide, citing a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report. Some of the hottest temperatures on record for September and October were recorded last year during those months, according to the guide.

While West Virginia is located in the heart of coal country, “we believe people can help fight climate change and at the same time, treat coal miners with dignity and respect,” Bryant said.

The West Virginia Climate Alliance includes the American Friends Service Committee, Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, Citizens Climate Lobby West Virginia, League of Women Voters of West Virginia, Christians for the Mountains, Moms Clean Air Force-West Virginia, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Sierra Club of West Virginia, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, West Virginia Citizen Action Education Fund, West Virginia Interfaith Power and Light and the West Virginia Rivers Coalition.

To view A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Change, go to wvrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/wvclimate.pdf

For a printed copy of the guide, or to comment on its content, contact Bryant at perrybryantwv@outlook.com

SOURCE: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/climate-change-guide-released-by-coalition-of-wv-environment-social-justice-groups/article_e72d325d-d2d3-5661-8df0-043afd0a8756.html

############################

See also: What is the West Virginia Center on Climate Change? — The West Virginia Center on Climate Change (“the Center” or “WV3C”) is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Morgantown and Thomas, WV. The Center is an initiative of the Friends of Blackwater (“FOB”), a regional conservation group.

Off Grid Energy will be distributed more widely over time ...

From the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, July 1, 2020

Spending on renewable power is set to overtake oil and gas drilling for the first time next year as clean energy affords a $16 trillion investment opportunity through 2030, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Renewables including biofuels will account for about a quarter of all energy spending next year, up from about 15% in 2014, Goldman analysts including Michele Della Vigna said in a June 16 note. This is in part driven by diverging costs of capital, as borrowing rates have risen to as high as 20% for hydrocarbon projects compared with as little as 3% for clean energy.

For more information, you can purchase the IDTechEx report on Distributed Generation: Off-Grid Zero-Emission kW-MW 2020-2040.

Clean energy could drive $1-$2 trillion a year in infrastructure investment and create 15-20 million jobs globally. Meanwhile the high cost of capital for fossil fuel developments is leading to underinvestment, which could lead to higher oil and gas prices that in turn spur a faster energy transition.

“Renewable power will become the largest area of spending in the energy industry in 2021, on our estimates, surpassing upstream oil and gas for the first time in history,” Goldman said in the note.

The divergence in borrowing costs for high- and low-carbon developments implies a carbon emissions price of about $40 to $80 a ton, Goldman said. In the real world, however, only about 16% of global emissions are priced, and the average value is about $3 a ton.

That’s creating a bifurcated investment model, with money flowing into mature technologies including wind, solar and biofuels while less-developed efforts such as like carbon capture and clean hydrogen could suffer without higher emissions prices, Goldman said.

Bloomberg says investments in renewables of $2.6 trillion this past decade

Carbon dioxide & methane pollution has become the climate change problem

From an Article by David Wooley, Utility Dive, June 22, 2020

The following is a contributed article by David Wooley, professor at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy and Executive Director of the Center for Environmental Public Policy.

What is the future of gas in the U.S. electric power sector? Is it essential, long-term, for a reliable and economical electric supply? A new study from UC Berkeley provides the latest answer, demonstrating it is technically and economically feasible to reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without building any new gas plants and reducing generation from existing plants by 70%, all without any increase in wholesale power costs compared to today.

Let’s clear away the myths about gas, renewables and the grid.

1. First, there is a widely circulated assumption that gas is cleaner than coal. It’s true that gas power plants produce less acid gas (SO2, NOX) and metals emissions than coal, but greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from gas are not significantly lower than coal. Methane emissions occur along the gas supply chain, from getting gas out of the ground and to market. Methane has 84 times the global warming impact of CO2 from burning coal and gas, a fact often overlooked in gas industry promotions. The fact is that gas used to make electricity is not “clean” and remains a serious problem for the climate.

2. Second, there is the question of reliability and whether we can trust a renewables-heavy grid when the sun isn’t shining. The truth is, the U.S. power grid has always been reliable using a diverse set of generation types. Today low-cost wind and solar, paired with battery storage technologies and existing hydro, nuclear and gas generation allows the U.S. to dramatically increase renewable generation, and cut fossil fuel use, without sacrificing dependability or raising costs.

3. Third, there is an old argument that gas is cheaper than renewables. Well, not anymore. In recent years, utility-scale wind and solar plants routinely out-bid gas and coal in wholesale electric markets. This is in part due to federal tax credits, but gas production also enjoys a wide range of federal subsidies, and wind and solar plant costs in many cases are already lower than gas generation even without considering the tax credits.

And finally, people often ask if renewables are only cost effective in very sunny and windy regions of Southwest and Plains states. The answer is no. Low costs are now driving a geographic expansion of renewables, making wind and solar cost-effective in all regions of the country.

The latter points are driven home by the study released last week by the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. The 2035 Report finds that plummeting costs of zero-carbon technologies allows the U.S. electricity system to deeply decarbonize, and lower customer electricity costs compared to today. This is the first report to show that technologies widely available today can preserve a dependable grid, and achieve large employment, health and climate benefits by 2035.

The report finds that it is technically and economically feasible to do so without new fossil gas power plants. This stands in contrast to the oil and gas industry’s efforts to rapidly expand gas generation in the U.S. and globally. According to RMI, utilities and other investors have announced plans for over $70 billion in new gas-fired power plant construction through 2025 and another $30 billion for new interstate gas pipelines.

Maintaining a dependable grid with sustainable generation

The study shows that the existing fleet of domestic gas plants, operating infrequently in combination with hydro, nuclear and battery storage, is enough to support a dependable grid during times when wind, solar and battery generation is low. The 70% decrease in gas generation that would come with the transition to 90% clean electricity would drop gas’s share of U.S. electric generation from 37% to 10%.

Gas would remain a part of the electric sector, but at a much smaller level than today. This is a good thing, since methane and CO2 emission from gas production and use must decline steeply to have any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. A 90% clean electric generation sector reduces annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1.6 billion tons of CO2. The GHG benefits do not stop there, since deep carbon reductions in the electric sector are a key step to decarbonize transportation and buildings.

The economic benefits of this shift are attractive. A turn away from new gas and existing coal generation in favor of renewables and storage would produce a net increase of 530,000 energy sector jobs and boost the economy with $1.7 trillion of private investment for renewables and storage. The job benefits would be widespread since utility-scale solar generation and wind are economic winners in every region and low-cost wind power’s range is expanding fast.

The job benefits make this a powerful COVID-19 recovery strategy. Most of the economic benefits can be achieved quickly, without increased government spending.

Can the U.S. really build enough renewables and storage to displace gas? Yes. This is shown by the number of utility-scale renewables projects currently in development — wholesale market interconnection queues include 544 GW of wind, solar and storage plants — and historic growth rates for other forms of power generation, such as gas.

To reach 90% clean electricity by 2035, 1,100 GW of new wind and solar need to be built, averaging about 70 GW per year. We’ve built on this scale before — the U.S. added 65 GW of natural gas generation in 2002. Moreover, the wind, solar and storage industries believe they can do it.

What’s the catch? It won’t happen without changes in federal and state energy policy. Old habits, that no longer serve current needs, die hard. America’s current electricity policy framework and market systems cannot deliver on this economic opportunity. Every day brings news of coal plant retirements, and investment in renewable energy, but policy changes can accelerate this and help support recovery from the current economic crisis.

While many states and cities are leading the country by passing policies to decarbonize by 2050, in the electric power sector we can — and must — go much faster. This study shows that targeting 2035 for deep decarbonization is possible, would increase employment and inject investment into the economy, improve public health, and go a long way toward aligning U.S. policy with climate realities.

Climate Lunch and Learn Series

From West Virginia Rivers Coalition, June 1, 2020

West Virginians are seeing the effects of the changing climate and researchers across the state are studying what it means for West Virginia. WV Rivers is highlighting these scientists and their research through our virtual Climate and Water Lunch & Learn Series. During the live webinars, you’ll learn first-hand from the researchers on the front line of the climate crisis.

Join us for our next webinar on June 5, 11:00 am. Dr. Nicolas Zégre is the Director of the Mountain Hydrology Laboratory at West Virginia University. He’ll be sharing his research on water security and climate change from a West Virginia perspective. Register here.

########################

Federal Threat to Net Metering & States’ Rights

From Solar United Neighbors, June 1, 2020

Protect Your Solar Rights!

A message from our partners at Solar United Neighbors

A secretive group of special interests are trying to strip away solar rights. If they succeed, families and businesses won’t be fairly credited for the valuable solar energy they produce.

>> If you already have solar, it could cost you thousands of dollars.

>> If you don’t yet have solar, it could limit your ability to go solar in the future.

>> If you’re a solar installer, it could mean fewer jobs and less revenue.

This group has asked federal regulators to seize states’ ability to ensure you receive fair credit for the electricity you produce.

Join Solar United Neighbors & Vote Solar to take action to stop the threat to net metering and states’ rights. Please go here to take a quick action and speak out in support of solar!

https://www.savesolar.org/

#########################

See also: WV Citizens for Clean Elections

Your Vote is Your Voice, June 1, 2020

#########################

See also: West Virginia Environmental Council Newsletter