Sign up for electronic communications and never miss what the Sierra Club is working on! Members who currently receive the printed newsletter can use this form to opt for electronic-only delivery.
A lot of people have heard the buzz around electric vehicles (EVs), but they don't know if an EV would be right for them. In fact, many don't even know what would be the right questions to ask themselves to figure out whether cars like the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, or Ford C-Max Energi would fit their lifestyles -- not to mention their budgets.
I'm happy to report that we at the Sierra Club have launched a 'pick-a-plug-in' web tool to help people figure out which electric cars, if any, are right for them. I hope you'll check it out and share it with your friends.
A poll last year found that nearly half of American households could purchase an EV for their next car; it would be a great fit for their driving needs, and they would have a place to charge it with electricity. We're talking about many millions of people. Are you one of them?
There are a lot of compelling reasons why more than a quarter million Americans have already bought EVs since they first came on the mass market a few years ago. They are cool high-tech wonders (imagine driving an iPhone!), there is little or no need to ever visit a gas station (depending on whether you purchase a full battery electric or a plug-in hybrid car), they are much cheaper to fuel (the equivalent of about $1 a gallon), and they are much better for the environment (even when considering the emissions from the electricity to charge them up).
Also, there is a $2,500-7,500 federal tax credit that comes with the purchase of an EV. And many people live in cities and states where they can take advantage of additional incentives, like a purchase/lease rebate (in some places get a check in the mail for thousands of dollars -- I am not kidding!), carpool lane access, and special utility rates for EV drivers. Linked to our new 'pick-a-plug-in' web tool is our online EV Guide that has all of this information if you enter your zip code. If you click on a specific EV, we'll even tell you how much you’ll avoid in carbon emissions and fueling costs compared to the average conventional car.
But are EVs currently the right fit for everyone? No. For example, some people don't have a place to charge them with electricity. For many, though, it’s simpler than they think. I had a basic 110 volt outlet installed on the side of my house, so I can charge up my car in our driveway. Easy peasy.
Many people ask me, "What's the best electric car to get?" My answer is always, "it depends." How many miles do you drive in a typical day? Do you take a lot of long-distance trips? How much money are you willing to spend? There are nearly 20 great models available in the US and more coming out every year.
So, what are you waiting for? Check out 'pick-a-plug-in,' and start your EV journey.
-- Gina Coplon-Newfield, Sierra Club's Director of Future Fleet & Electric Vehicles Initiative
Today, a fact finding team of five non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- the Sierra Club, 350.org, Carbon Market Watch, Friends of the Earth U.S. and Pacific Environment -- released a scathing report, The U.S. Export-Import Bank’s Dirty Dollars, on the rampant human rights abuses at the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) financed Sasan coal-fired power plant and mine in Singrauli, India.
For years, reports of human rights, indigenous rights, labor, and environmental violations have plagued Sasan and its owner, Indian company Reliance Power, and the U.S. government are partly to blame. The 3,960-megawatt project has received over $900 million in taxpayer finance from Ex-Im, and when allegations against the project are raised, Ex-Im prefers to look the other way.
When Indian groups and NGOs alerted Ex-Im to a smokestack collapse that killed 30 workers, the BankThis tribal child is one of the people who have been relocated in order to build Sasan. Photo courtesy of Nicole Ghio.
did nothing. When reports emerged of irregularities with the coal allotments for Sasan, foreshadowing the coal-gate scandal that would envelop then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Ex-Im said nothing. Eventually the outrage prompted the Bank to conduct a visit to the project, but while they met with Reliance, the Bank refused to meet in the communities. Instead, they insisted that the affected people who had faced violence at the hands of Reliance – people without access to reliable transportation – meet them at a hotel that catered to industrial interests. Shockingly, people were afraid to speak out in such an unsafe venue. But even so, they refused to stay silent for long.
Today’s fact finding report contains first-hand accounts from the front line communities Ex-Im attempted to ignore.
What we uncovered in our trips to Sasan was heartbreaking. We heard from villagers whose homes were destroyed in the middle of the night while they were still living in them. We met with indigenous residents whose children were denied entry into schools. And we learned how Reliance covers up injuries -- and even deaths -- at the project.
There were two groups, though, that we did not hear from. Reliance Power refused to meet with the fact finding team, and Ex-Im refused to provide the supplemental environmental reports -- including the remediation or mitigation plans and related monitoring documents -- that Reliance is required to submit to Ex-Im, and which federal legislation and the Bank’s own policies require be made available on request.This seed pod is covered in coal dust from the conveyor belt that brings coal to Sasan from the mine. Photo courtesy of Nicole Ghio.
Recognizing the risk Sasan could pose, Ex-Im classified it as a Category A project when the Bank approved the financing. This means the coal project is required to comply with additional standards, including the IFC Performance Standards and their provisions for environmental and social impacts, labor and working conditions, pollution prevention, community health, and resettlement. It is clear from first hand reports that Sasan fails in all these areas.
However, without the monitoring documents, it is impossible to know if Ex-Im willfully ignored these requirements or if it failed to do its own due diligence to monitor Sasan and investigate complaints. In order to learn the truth, the Sierra Club submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today to obtain the missing documents.
But the truth is not enough for the people living with the impacts of Sasan. They need justice.
We hoped the first step would take place last week, when the U.S. Export-Import Bank Office of the Inspector General (OIG) – the independent investigative body for Ex-Im -- traveled to Singrauli for an inspection of Sasan. But the OIG seemed more interested in building a relationship with Reliance than listening to the communities.
The OIG representatives arranged to travel to Singrauli in a Reliance helicopter, but were forced to change their plans due to weather. Once they finally arrived, they also refused to meet with the affected people in their communities. The OIG did allow a few representatives to visit them at their hotel at 7:30 in the morning while Reliance officials waited outside and could take note of who attended, possibly endangering those who showed up.
The U.S. can no longer allow itself to be complaisant in the abuses taking place at Sasan. We call on the OIG to conduct a thorough inspection that includes follow-up visits using the best practices established by the CAO and with third party experts who can evaluate the impacts.
Moreover, it is imperative that Ex-Im use its influence to halt a proposed expansion of Sasan and work with Reliance to bring the project into compliance with the IFC Performance Standards. Should this prove impossible, Ex-Im must withdraw from the project.
To do less calls into question the legitimacy of the Export-Import Bank and its ability to effectively monitor the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars abroad.
--Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club International Climate Program
Sudarshan Rajak disappeared under suspicious circumstances after protesting the relocation of families for Reliance Power’s 4,000-megawatt Sasan coal project in Singrauli, India. Some of his neighbors believehe was in his house when it was bulldozed by Reliance. Krishna Das Saha's home was destroyed in the middle of the night -- while his family was still living in it -- to make way for Sasan’s coal ash pond. And when Sati Prasad challenged Reliance’s refusal to hire local workers, he was dragged out of his home and beaten by the police.
These are just a few people who have met violence and intimidation at the hands of Reliance Power. This aggression is subsidized U.S. tax dollars in the form of over $900 million in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). Indian groups have documented these and other abuses in Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh: A Brief Report.
Ex-Im has turned a deaf ear to the allegations against the project, but it appeared as though the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) -- the independent investigative body for Ex-Im -- was prepared to listen. Now, we are not so sure
This week, the OIG traveled to Singrauli as part of its inspection of Sasan. While the two OIG representatives were happy to make arrangements to travel to Singrauli in a Reliance helicopter – plans they later had to amend due to rain – they refused to meet with the affected people, claiming that meeting in the communities would make the OIG appear biased. Instead, the OIG summoned a small group of local people to their hotel at 7:30 in the morning while Reliance officials waited outside and could see which villagers came to meet with the OIG.
This is flat out wrong. By holding the meetings at the hotel instead of in the communities, as was originally requested, the OIG put villagers who are concerned about the project at future risk.
Moreover, the OIG has an obligation to follow-up on complaints from affected people. Ex-Im classifiedThe Sasan coal-fired power plant in Singrauli, India. Photo courtesy of Nicole Ghio.
Sasan as a Category A project, which means that it is required to comply with additional standards, including the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards for environmental and social impacts, labor and working conditions, pollution prevention, community health, and resettlement. The OIG is abdicating its responsibility if it ignores the human impacts and restricts its inspection to the Ex-Im standards for the export of equipment and other weaker benchmarks.
I personally met with affected communities and retold their stories to officials at Ex-Im -- including alerting the Bank officials to a smokestack collapse that killed 30 workers as well as irregularities in coal allotments. These irregularities foreshadowed the coal-gate scandal, which later rocked India and forced then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to defend himself to Parliament.
But instead of using their trip to listen to the people affected by Sasan, the OIG was only willing to take a tour of the sites by car, where they could view the communities out the windows while refusing to stop and talk to them. Unsurprisingly, the community members felt this was unacceptable.
This is not justice.
The OIG does not currently have a process for this type of inspection, but other institutions do. Last week, Civil Society Organizations sent a letter to the OIG outlining how to conduct an objective and complete report, using the process employed by the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO) of the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation as a guideline. This includes conducting follow-up visits to meet with affected people in their communities and employing third party experts to assess the impacts.
Will the OIG step up and conduct an impartial inspection? Or will it aid in the suppression of the impacted communities?
If the OIG chooses the latter, they will receive a rude awakening. Local residents have shown time and time again that they will not be silenced.
--Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club International Climate Program
In recent weeks, something amazing has been happening in the Gulf Coast of Louisiana – communities have been standing up and casting votes to ring the alarm about proposed coal export projects. As U.S. coal use has declined, mining companies are looking for a future in international markets. And while most people might think of the Pacific Northwest as ground zero for planned coal export facilities, the Gulf Coast is home to over a dozen proposed coal export terminals as well. Thankfully, as the plans to export coal through the state grow, so does the opposition from local residents.
Case in point - the small town of Gretna, Louisiana, in Jefferson Parish. This is a historic metro area of New Orleans, and it's also the site of a proposed coal export project called the RAM coal export terminal. If constructed, the facility could see some six to eight million tons of coal and refinery waste exported overseas every year (that's about six coal-fired power plants worth of coal). It would add to the dust and water pollution burden in the communities it neighbors by sending mile-long, uncovered coal trains running through historic neighborhoods, and it also threatens the state's vital coastal restoration projects.
The fight over this export facility hit a milestone in September, when residents packed a Jefferson Parish Council meeting. They cheered when the council voted unanimously on a resolution that questioned the impacts that the RAM terminal would have on coastal restoration, and also called on the Army Corps of Engineers to hold public hearings and conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement on RAM.
"This was the outcome of an entire summer of outreach by the Sierra Club, our partners in the Gulf Restoration Network, and the Clean Gulf Commerce Coalition," says Devin Martin, a New Orleans-based organizer with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "We made a big push to generate turnout and demonstrate public opposition to the export terminal at the previous council meeting in August, and more than 100 people attended -- it was standing room only."
Residents worked together to phone-bank, write letters, put up yard signs, collect petition signatures, and much more to educate their neighbors and to pressure the council. They also packed the Gretna City Council meeting in July and previous educational forums. Martin credits some amazing community activists, especially Grace Morris of the Gulf Restoration Network, for such a successful movement of residents against this polluting facility.
There's still much work left to do - especially after the Army Corps of Engineers responded to the Jefferson Parish Council vote by issuing a press release saying there's no need for public hearings on the RAM terminal proposal. But Martin and other coal export opponents still have lots of reasons for optimism.
Momentum is building against coal exports in the Gulf. The unanimous vote by the Jefferson Parish Council on Sept. 17 was preceded by a unanimous vote by the Gretna City Council on September 10. In June, the neighboring city of Westwego passed a resolution opposing coal trains.
"While the (Jefferson Parish Council) resolution doesn't stop the project or even force the Corps to act, the political implications cannot be overstated," said Martin. "Jefferson is Louisiana's second most populous parish, the home turf of some of our most powerful and infamous politicians, and so deep Red that it falls into the infrared spectrum of political leanings."
You can help! Sign the petition to oppose coal exports in Louisiana.
-- Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal campaign director
Poisoned Chalice: California rate design reform and its consequences for rooftop solar, efficiency, and conservation
Last year the California Legislature passed a bill (AB 327 - Perea) granting the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the ability to make broad changes to how the state's investor owned utilities (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) charge customers for electricity. In his departing comments (PDF) from the CPUC, former Commissioner Mark Ferron observed that the bill was "a poisoned chalice" because "the Commission will come under intense pressure to use this authority to protect the interest of the utilities over those of consumers and potential self-generators, all in the name of addressing exaggerated concerns about grid stability, cost and fairness."
Sure enough, that intense pressure has begun. Utilities are now asking the CPUC to significantly change rates that would hurt low-income customers and, as an analysis by the Sierra Club demonstrates (PDF), cripple the market for rooftop solar and efficiency upgrades. At public meetings throughout the state, hundreds of Sierra Club members, clean energy workers and consumers are speaking out against the proposed changes.
Speaking out against utility proposed rates at a public participation hearing in Fontana
What Utilities Want: Fixed Charges and Flat Rates
Currently, electricity rates are "tiered" so the more you use, the more you pay. Initial consumption is charged at a low rate, with rates increasing significantly with energy use. This structure rewards conservation and is in large part responsible for the rapid growth of rooftop solar in California because it makes energy-savings investments economic for customers with high energy-usage. Energy bills are also almost entirely tied to the amount of energy consumption with few unavoidable fixed charges.
Last summer, utilities succeeded in passing AB 327, which removed protections limiting the price of energy at lower consumptions levels and allowed utilities to seek CPUC approval of a "fixed charge" of up to $10 on energy bills. With the passage of AB 327, utilities are now seeking to exploit AB 327 to its fullest by asking the CPUC to:1) add the maximum permissible monthly fixed charge of $10 to each customer's bill in 2016, rising over time from there;
2) collapse the existing four-tiered rate structure to just two tiers, with only a small difference in the rates charged between tiers.
What Fixed Charges and Flat Rates Do: Hurt Low-Income Customers and the Environment
Let's unpack the impact of the proposed utility changes. First off, what does a fixed charge mean for your average customer bill? Well, opening up my bill from Southern California Edison, every bill my family pays begins with a 99 cent "basic charge" at the top of my bill. If you're an SCE customer, yours is about the same. That charge is going to jump to $10 per month. Nothing I do, from conserving energy to going solar will offset that charge. It's fixed on my bill, which means my family has to pay ten bucks every month to SCE before we consume a single kilowatt hour. This type of charge is bad policy for two reasons.
As shown in the above graph, fixed charges punish those that conserve and consume little energy by significantly increasing the cost of the little energy they do use. Unavoidable charges also reduce everyone's incentive to reduce energy use by reducing the savings from conservation and measures like rooftop solar. For example, in its analysis of the utilities’ proposed rates, the Sierra Club determined (PDF) that the $10 fixed charge would increase the average payback period for a rooftop solar investment for SCE customers by an average of 1.4 years, making the decision to go solar significantly less economic.
SCE's primary argument is that maintaining the grid has costs and everyone should pay for it, regardless of how much energy you use. If that sounds nuts to you, join the club. It's sort of like a grocery store charging you $10 bucks a month to cover the costs of their dilapidated shelving units, before you walk in the door. A better policy is a minimum bill. Unlike a fixed charge, which affects all customers, a minimum bill is only triggered when a bill would otherwise fall below the minimum rate. A properly set minimum bill ensures all customers contribute to grid expenses without significantly impacting conservation and low-income customers like fixed charges do.
SCE also wants to reduce the tiers from four to two with little difference in price between tiers. Typically, my family stays within the first two tiers. Over time we have invested in insulation, an attic fan, and replaced some more energy efficient light bulbs. Even during this recent heat wave, we've only barely climbed into the third tier. Under the SCE's proposal, tiers one and two would increase into one single more expensive tier, while tiers three and four would drop significantly. In other words, families like mine would see their bills go up while energy hogs would see their bills drop. On top of that, flat rates make it more difficult for energy hogs to do the right thing by significantly reducing their economic incentive to invest in rooftop solar and efficiency measures.
What's the justification? Well, utilities say the current rate structure is unfair because high energy users pay a disproportionate share of costs of the energy grid. However, energy hogs should pay more because they impose greater costs by driving the need for new gas plants and more expensive peak power. In addition, rates should reinforce state energy and climate policies, not undermine them. Rates with meaningful differences between tiers are not only fair, but also critical to encouraging clean energy solutions like energy efficiency or rooftop solar. At minimum, utilities should include three balanced tiers. The third tier should be twice the tier one rate so that customers are encouraged to use less energy.
Time for the PUC to Stand Up to Utilities and Defend State Clean Energy Goals
In his closing remarks (PDF) on the "poisoned chalice" of rate design, former Commission Ferron called on his fellow commissioners to "be bold and forthright in defending and strengthening our state’s commitment to clean and distributed energy generation." The CPUC should reject the utilities' proposed fixed charge and extreme tier flattening and ensure rates continue to foster a clean energy economy. You can weigh in now by sending a comment to the CPUC today. A final CPUC decision on rates is expected in early 2015.
-- Evan Gillespie, western region deputy director, Sierra Club
Light projection on the World Bank building in Washington DC Source: 350.org, 2013
For the fourth year in a row, the World Bank’s investments are coal-free. But the real test of the strength of this commitment will come when the bank decides whether or not to fund the Kosovo C coal-fired power plant in Kosovo.
Currently, Kosovo relies on two old and extremely dirty coal-fired plants for most of its electricity. One of these plants recently exploded, leaving the country to rely on even more imported energy. In light of this disaster, the Kosovar government -- and the World Bank -- are hinging all of their hopes on the proposed Kosovo C coal-fired power plant to quell this seemingly endless energy import and finally meet the Kosovars’ growing energy needs.
But what the World Bank is failing to realize is that the solution to Kosovo’s energy crisis cannot be found in outdated, dangerous energy supplies like coal. By turning to a modern 21st century energy plan -- including energy efficiency, wind, and solar -- Kosovo will be able to easily meet its growing energy demands, protect the health of its people and environment, and subsequently drive growth in the country.
Currently, nearly one-third of the nation’s energy is wasted on an antiquated and inefficient transformer fleet and energy grid. The proposed Kosovo C coal-fired power plant will not only continue to perpetuate the use of this outdated system, but it will lock the country into using lignite coal -- the dirtiest type of coal -- for at least the next several decades.
By increasing energy efficiency and transitioning to clean energy sources over time, this waste will be drastically reduced and, in turn, will save countless lives and much-needed money. On top of that, by reducing and eventually eliminating the use of lignite coal, the country will be in a better position to ensure a safer, healthier future for its people.
Luckily, many local groups have already taken up this fight.
As we speak, the Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development (KOSID) and their allies are protesting energy rate hikes approaching 10 percent, which is on top of several rate hikes that have come in the years before.
But how can Kosovars afford a new coal-fired power plant? The answer is they can’t.
The Kosovo C coal-fired power plant is estimated to cost approximately $1 billion of the country’s $6.9 billion annual gross domestic product. So, where is this money coming from? You guessed it: from the pockets of Kosovars.
Already, some estimates are predicting more than a 40 percent increase in energy bills for Kosovars in order to offset the cost. And that’s before construction has even started. This is more than the people of Kosovo should have to pay for energy, particularly when clean energy solutions will not only lower energy bills but health-related costs as well. Investments in energy efficiency and clean energy could solve Kosovo’s energy crisis for a fraction of a price -- which is something the World Bank, as the world’s foremost multilateral development bank, should be in the market for.
As the decision to fund the Kosovo C coal-fired power plant looms ahead, the world will be watching to see if the World Bank is truly committed to ending coal financing or if it will stain its impeccable record and ignore the commonsense clean energy solutions already available.
Kosovo is the question. The World Bank now has to answer.
-- Andrew Linhardt, Associate Washington Representative
All this good clean energy news lately, and I haven't talked about the recent college victories! Last month, thanks to tremendous student activism, officials at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill and the University of Georgia announced significant steps related to moving beyond coal.
First, at UNC, The Board of Trustees passed a resolution to target clean energy investments in the school's $2.2 billion endowment. This decision comes after more than three years of students campaigning for coal divestment and action on clean energy. Students are thrilled - but they also know their work isn't done.
"I'm proud that UNC has joined those efforts for environmentally sustainable investing. This is a huge accomplishment for UNC and all its current and future students," said UNC junior and Sierra Student Coalition activist Lauren Moore. "This decision is a good first step, but one that ultimately needs to lead to UNC completely divesting from fossil fuels, and transitioning to 100 percent just, clean energy."
Meanwhile at the University of Georgia, the President confirmed publicly for the first time that they will retire the campus coal boiler -- which "is the largest single source of pollution in Athens (Georgia)."
This announcement comes after five years of student pressure and activism on campus. I have written on the many victories the students have achieved along the way in the Beyond Coal campaign at UGA, including most recently the moment when students finally secured an update from their Facilities Management office that the Administration was pursuing replacements to the coal boiler.
Despite much silence and opposition by previous UGA Administration, for five years the students worked toward one thing: a formal announcement by their President that UGA is retiring the coal boiler and moving beyond coal. This announcement by current President Morehead is a testament to all those years of hard work.
"I think this victory shows how persuasive student voices and activism can be on college campuses," said recent UGA grad Laura Toulme. "The campaign was long and hard with many obstacles, but I am so happy that our administration finally understands the importance of eliminating this source of pollution and carbon from our campus and community."
Toulme says UGA students will continue to push the school to divest from fossil fuels and invest more in clean energy.
Young people like those at UNC and UGA are at the forefront of ensuring campuses and communities are making the transition to a 100 percent just, localized clean energy economy. I love the inspiration these young leaders provide every day, and I'm so proud to work with them to move the nation beyond coal and toward more clean energy.
-- Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign
If you haven't been watching MSNBC"s "All in with Chris Hayes" every night this week, you've been missing out on some phenomenal research into the coal industry, its future in the U.S., and the people fighting for clean energy to replace. Here's the brief outline of what he's covering each night.
Let's start with this great brief interview with Sierra Club Mississippi volunteer Barbara Correro talking about the Kemper coal plant and its strip mine being built right next to her home.
Monday night's segment was all about coal in Kentucky. Tuesday covered how Big Coal is very similar to Big Tobacco. Wednesday night delved into whether "clean coal" actually exists - that's where the brief interview with Barbara comes from.
There are many excellent bonus segments on the show's website, so we encourage you to check them all out to learn more. And of course, watch Thursday and Friday night's segments!
World Bank energy investments are categorically failing to end energy poverty.
That’s the stark finding of a new report released by Sierra Club and Oil Change International which measures how multilateral development banks (MDB) fare on their efforts to end energy poverty. The report benchmarked recent MDB investments in clean energy access against the breakdown of needed investment called for in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “Energy for All” scenario. In that scenario, universal energy access is achieved by 2030.
As it stands, if the “Energy for All” scenario is going to succeed, it will require 64 percent of all new investments be used to fund the fastest, cheapest, and most effective source of energy that will help energy poor populations get on to the energy ladder. That source of energy? Distributed off-grid and mini-grid clean energy systems for those living Beyond the Grid.
The problem is, the world’s foremost development institution -- the World Bank -- is failing miserably to live up to the IEA’s goals.
Despite the presence of wildly successful programs like Lighting Africa and Bangladesh’s IDCOL program -- which has jumpstarted a booming off-grid solar market totaling 3.3 million systems installed to date -- the report shows that the World Bank Group fell painfully short on its investments in clean energy access.
Key findings include that less than 10 percent of the Bank’s energy funding specifically targets the poor – a group that makes up nearly 40 percent of the world’s population, when you include people who lack access to electricity and/or modern cooking fuels. Even worse is the fact that out of that miserly 10 percent, only one quarter was spent on off-grid or mini-grid clean energy deployment -- well short of the IEA’s benchmark of 64 percent.
As a result of this pitiful performance, the World Bank received an ‘F’ on its report card for energy access efforts.
While those who follow the Bank will likely be unsurprised by these figures, they are nonetheless appalling. The World Bank is, after all, a vocal supporter of the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) campaign. It also claims poverty eradication as an overarching priority for its investments. So its patent failure on this issue is, simply put, unacceptable.
But an even more important question is: Why is the World Bank failing so miserably?
As my colleague Peter Bosshard at International Rivers has pointed out, it’s structural. For instance a World Bank evaluation found in 2009 that “internal Bank incentives work against [efficiency] projects because they are often small in scale, demanding of staff time and preparation funds, and may require persistent client engagement over a period of years. This makes them less attractive to managers and agencies that use disbursement as a measure of action and large turbines as a visible symbol of achievement.”
As Peter goes on to point out, “Five years later, the Bank's Quality Assurance Group castigated the institution's ‘pressure to lend’, and pointed to the ‘fear that a realistic, and thus more modest, project would be dismissed as too small and inadequate in its impact.”
The World Bank's central problem is, according to author Bruce Rich, “a culture of loan approval, institutionalized in various perverse internal incentives.”
That’s why despite having a nearly $4.1 billion dollar annual energy portfolio, the World Bank has failed to pony up a meager $500 million in investment for beyond the grid clean energy markets. And our analysis confirms that investment is enough to catapult this rapidly-growing market towards a $12 billion clean energy access marketplace that can end energy poverty in our lifetime.
That’s not to say the Bank can’t overcome these problems if they want to.
Aggregating investments via financial intermediaries is an already well-worn path that offers a way to overcome the problems associated with a large number of small deals. Similarly, ring-fencing resources, developing new funds, altering staff incentives, and creating mandates to lend in this market would all encourage Bank staff to invest in this space and help turn around the Bank’s failing grade.
And let’s be clear: the upside to investing in these clean energy markets is tremendous. According to the Bank’s own Lighting Africa program, these markets are growing at an astounding 95 percent annual rate. Bangladesh’s IDCOL program has increased solar installations at a 60 percent rate for an entire decade. Those are growth rates roughly two times what mobile phone penetration grew at in the early 2000’s. And, to top it all off, this market solves one of the most high profile development challenges of our time.
But that’s a solution that requires leadership, which clearly isn’t being provided. That was especially obvious when World Bank President Dr. Kim infamously said he believed the World Bank could only be ‘taken seriously’ if it continued investing in businesses as usual -- businesses including coal.
As long as Dr. Kim remains uninterested in truly innovative approaches to ending energy poverty, the one institution that should ‘own’ this problem and provide scalable clean energy investment is sitting on the sidelines.
But World Bank or no World Bank, private investors and foundations are waking up to the opportunities in this market, with $45 million invested this year alone. That means Dr. Kim faces the very real possibility that instead of being at the vanguard of ending energy poverty, he will be missing in action.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
All signs point to the fact that Dr. Kim is serious when he talks about innovation and that he truly cares about ending poverty. If that’s truly the case, it’s time he stood up and declared a new day at the Bank; one where those taken seriously are the innovators - not defenders of the status quo.
That’s because in the 21st century, villagers won’t wait for the grid, and those that are serious about ending poverty shouldn’t promise it.
Help Dr. Kim lead the World Bank into the 21st century and demand he pledge $500 million of the Bank’s energy portfolio to clean energy access.
--Justin Guay, Associate Director, International Climate Program, and Vrinda Manglik, Associate Campaign Representative, International Clean Energy Access
Last month, plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) made up the highest percentage ever tallied of total vehicles sold in the United States. This is good news.
According to the latest monthly scorecard from the prolific EV media site InsideEVs, auto manufacturers sold 10,538 electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. last month. This includes both plug-in hybrids and full battery electrics. Out of the 1,246,006 total vehicles sold in the U.S. last month, plug-in vehicles made up .85 percent of total vehicle sales in September –the highest percentage to date according to our calculations.
This portion may sound small, but it’s 20 percent bigger than the percentage from September 2013.
For an environmental group like the Sierra Club, it is this percentage that we care about more than total EV sales (which were strong, but not outstanding last month). As a way to slash oil use and emissions, we need people to switch from driving to transit, biking, and walking –meaning fewer auto sales and less driving overall. But for the millions who will continue to drive in the near future, we need them to switch to EVs, which are significantly cleaner than conventional vehicles.
What accounts for this highest ever percentage last month? We like to think it's because of the more than 90,000 people who attended National Drive Electric Week events in 150+ cities in mid-September -– not to mention the hundreds of thousands more who read the 200+ media hits from the week’s exciting events. The increasing number of appealing plug-in cars on the market must also play a factor as well as glowing consumer reviews of cars like the Volt, the Leaf, and the Model S -- to name a few.
For statistic hawks and EV advocates who may be questioning our math, I’ll mention a caveat: the EV sales figures reported by the Electric Drive Transportation Association last month were lower than those reported by InsideEVs. The reason is that each is making a different guesstimate of Tesla Model S sales, since Tesla reports quarterly rather than monthly. However, the Editor-In-Chief of InsideEVs Jay Cole told me that his team has averaged only about 150 cars higher or lower than the final quarterly numbers over the last few years. Meaning: these guys are really good at estimating EV sales figures.
Relatedly, there was also promising news out of the EPA this week. The agency reported that model year 2013 car and truck fuel efficiency and emissions reductions are at an all-time record high, having improved eight of the last nine years. At an average of 24.1 mpg, there is a long way to go, but we’re moving in the right direction.
To rev up fuel efficiency and reach a tipping point, EVs must, of course, make up a much higher percentage of total U.S. sales. Whether it’s five, 10, or 25 percent (think about the point when people quickly started buying TVs and cell phones for the first time), that is where the rubber will really meet the road. Consumer rebates, public education programs, utility incentives, workplace charging initiatives, and other aggressive EV policies and programs must accelerate to get us there.
-- Gina Coplon-Newfield directs Sierra Club’s Future Fleet & Electric Vehicles Initiative. Christina Rohrbacher also contributed to this article. Photo by Tom Moloughney from Montclair, NJ 2014 National Drive Electric Week event.
We already know that pay-as-you-go (PAYG) solar companies are making high-quality, modern clean energy products readily available for those living beyond the grid -- a factor that is poised to expand energy access to the 1.2 billion people currently without access to power.
When combined with digital finance -- which includes branchless banking and mobile money -- PAYG technologies can not only expand more rapidly, they can potentially -- for the first time ever -- begin to build a credit history for people living beyond the grid. That makes clean energy all the more transformative because the ability to build credit enables low-income populations to access the financial system and affords them the opportunity to buy productive assets and ultimately improve their economic situation.
Now, thanks to The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) comprehensive new report, it’s easy for those interested in the transformative potential of the PAYG market -- including investors and those looking to work in energy access -- to understand the nuts and bolts of this nascent market.
CGAP’s report -- which counts at least 25 companies using pay-as-you-go technology -- lays out some of the factors that have converged to make this such an opportune time for the sector.
Reason 1: Solar Got Really Cheap. There has been a significant drop in the price of solar panels, batteries, and LEDs. The CGAP report points out that solar panels currently cost half of what they did in 2008 and are still getting cheaper.Source: Dalberg analysis
Reason 2: The Market Is Exploding With Growth. There has been dramatic market growth for small-scale solar products. For example, the compound annual growth rate from the sale of four million portable solar lighting products in Africa from 2009 to 2012 was 300 percent.
Reason 3: Quality And After-Sales Service Is Improving. Changes in technology mean better quality solar products, including a 20 percent lengthening of battery life in the past four years alone. There is also a greater ability to monitor and manage solar devices remotely through machine-to-machine chips and GSM/GPRS modules.
Reason 4: Mobile Phone And Mobile Money Penetration Unlock Solar. The proliferation of mobile phones has enhanced communication between customers and companies, and mobile-enabled money transfer platforms have made payment collection more efficient and easier for solar companies.
These converging factors mean that the road ahead for PAYG is an exciting one. It’s important to note, however, that the sector is not homogenous, and this is where CGAP’s report is most useful. It lays out various options and models that are succeeding in the PAYG sector, including:
PAYG solar product categories, with examples of companies;
different models for digitizing payments with mobile money and energy credits, with on-network or off-network payment hardware;
options for pricing based on time or usage; and
PAYG solar can also promote access to other sources of formal financing, which is exactly why CGAP is interested in these issues. CGAP, housed at the World Bank, has an overall objective of advancing financial inclusion for all, including low-income customers, and is engaging with these issues through its Digital Finance Plus initiative. This initiative aims to help providers leverage branchless banking and digital payments to make basic, essential services and utilities more accessible and affordable to people at the base of the pyramid. This includes not only improving energy access but also access to healthcare, education, and water.
Innovative pay-as-you-go technologies are creating new ways to finance assets for low-income consumers, reducing the risks of financial exclusion based simply on income or wealth. That’s without even mentioning the benefits affordable lighting can provide for health and education.
It is an exciting and dynamic time for the PAYG market, for those attempting to keep up, CGAP’s new report is a must-read.
--Justin Guay, Associate Director, International Climate Program, and Vrinda Manglik, Associate Campaign Representative, International Clean Energy Access
In his statement at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York City last week, Prime Minister Cameron pledged higher emissions standards for UK’s coal-fired power plants, and his team later tweeted that he plans to phase out existing coal-fired power plants in the UK in the next 10 to 15 years.
As one of the world’s leaders in carbon emissions, that’s huge. And this is just the latest in a series of steps away from coal for the UK.
At the COP19 Warsaw Climate Conference last year, following the lead of the United States and several Nordic countries, the UK announced that it would no longer publicly finance international coal projects.
However, recent efforts to lobby for the continued operation of the Aberthaw coal-fired power plant in South Wales directly contradict the government’s initiatives to advance the UK’s energy sector beyond a heavy reliance on coal. As it stands, the Aberthaw plant burns coal that is unusually difficult to ignite and employs chemical processes that result in nitrogen oxide (NoX) emissions five times above the legal limit. In fact, the plant was named as one of the top 30 highest carbon emitting plants in the Europe.
But despite its heavy emission output, Aberthaw coal-fired power plant remains exempt from European Commission regulations based on shaky arguments that it uses indigenous coal which is safe from the volatility of an international coal supply.
A recent flagship report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate on the new climate economy explicitly calls for “high-income countries to commit to avoiding further construction of new unabated coal as a minimum first step to avoid further lock-in to high GHG emissions and accelerate retirements of old plants.”
And this report is not merely an exercise in academia; the Commission includes former heads of state and finance ministers, the head of one of China’s largest private banks, and high ranking officials from the world’s leading international economic institutions including the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. While the scientific case for the risks of continued coal consumption has broad consensus, this report is among the first to make a comprehensive economic case for a decisive shift away from coal.
The world will be watching to see if Prime Minister Cameron is all talk or if he’ll follow-up on his pledge with concrete action.
-- Rohan Bhatia, International Climate Program Intern
Solar is soaring to the top of the class.
Recently, the Solar Foundation and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) released their National Solar Schools Census, the most extensive database of it’s kind, that catalogues all solar-powered K-12 schools in the U.S.
The goal of the database is to serve “as a starting point for sharing ideas and best practices between schools experienced with solar energy and those seeking to join their ranks.” And from the looks of it, they’ve already got a head start.
According to the report, there have been more than 3,700 solar systems installed on U.S. schools, which in turn powers the education of almost 2.7 million students each day. But that’s just a small fraction of solar’s potential in education. An estimated 72,000 schools -- that’s 60 percent of all schools nationwide -- can still cost-effectively go solar. To put that into perspective, that would be the equivalent of taking one million vehicles off the road.
And that number is expected to continue to grow by leaps and bounds.
In the last six years alone, solar’s rate of installation at schools has jumped by 110 percent, and over the past four years, the cost of installation has fallen by more than 50 percent. If this trend continues -- and experts predict that it will -- we can expect a sunnier future for our students.
At a time when transitioning to clean energy is a key weapon in tackling the climate crisis, that’s huge.
Already, climate disruption is fuelling an increase in sea level rise, Arctic ice melting, decreasing wildlife, unchecked wildfires, severe droughts, and extreme temperatures. Without immediate action -- both globally and in our own backyards -- our communities will see these dangers increase and our children will come to recognize them as the new normal.
And that’s just the half of it. Already, unchecked carbon pollution from each coal-fired power plant leads to 491 asthma attacks and 22 asthma-related emergency room visits each year, many of those children. When you couple the effects on children’s health with the time spent missing school as a result of illness, the true cost of carbon pollution for children is staggering.
Luckily, many schools are taking action and cutting carbon pollution by switching to solar. These schools are not only helping to protect the health of their students, but they’re giving the next generation a leg up.
With the potential for solar schools nearly endless, that’s an A+ in our books.
Are your curious to see if your school made the switch to solar? Check out the interactive map.
-- Sierra Club Media Team
As the threat of climate disruption becomes increasingly urgent, it makes sense that every source of greenhouse gas emissions should come under scrutiny. Both the reckless burning of fossil fuels and unsustainable agricultural practices are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. However, as the recent documentary film Cowspiracy rightly points out, the latter are too often overlooked as a potential source of reductions.
In fact, how we farm and what we eat can make a real difference for our climate future, and that knowledge should inform not only our personal choices but also our public policies. Eliminating or reducing meat consumption in your diet is one important way to reduce your contribution to climate change, since animal agriculture is the single largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions from food production. At the same time, the Sierra Club continues to support broader reforms in food production that will also help limit climate disruption.
Many current agricultural practices, such as large-scale monocropping (the practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land) and concentrated animal-feeding operations (CAFOs), consume disproportionate amounts of fossil fuels, pollute our water and air, deplete the soil, and diminish biodiversity. The good news is that we have many opportunities to improve in all of these areas.
We're calling for reform of industrial agricultural and food system practices, to minimize contributions to greenhouse gases and to maximize carbon sequestration in plants and soils. The pollution from concentrated animal-feeding operations in particular is grossly disproportionate to the amount of food produced. Growing heavily subsidized energy-intensive corn to convert to ethanol fuel makes no sense from an energy, food supply, climate or pollution standpoint and it should be opposed.
The single greatest source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions is livestock, particularly factory-raised animals. Cattle (for both beef and milk, as well as for inedible outputs like manure and draft power) are responsible for about two-thirds of livestock emissions.
Fortunately, we can cut livestock emissions significantly not only by reducing personal meat consumption but also by following best practices and ending our reliance on concentrated animal-feeding operations. The Sierra Club continues to strongly oppose the establishment of new CAFOs and believes we should phase out existing operations as soon as possible.
Furthermore, ensuring soil maintains its carbon stock is a highly effective means of carbon sequestration. Yet, most agricultural soils have had their carbon stock dramatically reduced by soil loss, excessive tillage, overgrazing, erosion, and overuse of chemical nitrous fertilizers. In fact, the world's cultivated and grazed soils have lost 50 to 70 percent of their original carbon stock. In the process billions of tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere. That's why it's critical that we rebuild soil carbon through regenerative agricultural practices.
Massive food production operations are at the root of many of these problems. Converting our natural landscapes into intensive agricultural operations can change land from carbon sinks to carbon sources. Deforestation, plowing up prairies, and filling wetlands destroys existing carbon sinks and releases that carbon into our atmosphere, increasing emissions.
As consumers, we each have a personal role to play as well, through our choices about the foods we eat:
- Whenever possible, we can support locally owned and operated farms, which are generally far less destructive and far more productive. This also reduces the need for long-distance transportation of foods.
- We can avoid highly processed, so-called "convenience foods," which are not only nutritionally inferior, but also waste energy and packaging materials.
- Striving to reduce food waste, through smaller serving sizes, composting, and recycling, will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Organically grown foods that don't rely on chemicals are better for the soil, climate, and our health.
- If we do choose to eat meat, we should look for grass-fed, responsibly raised beef, which is both healthier and far more sustainable than factory-produced beef.
Addressing climate disruption is important enough that we cannot afford to overlook any strategy for success. Fortunately, just as with transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy, we can reap important collateral benefits by adopting more responsible and sustainable agricultural practices and by making smarter lifestyle choices.
-- Bruce Hamilton, Sierra Club Deputy Executive Director
Late Monday the Federal Energy Regulatrory Commission (FERC) approved the controversial Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Maryland. The Sierra Club and a large coalition of groups -- including Earthjustice, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Patuxent Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, Shenandoah Riverkeeper, and Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper -- have been fighting this plan since its announcement because it means a massive expansion of natural gas fracking.
More than 40,000 people submitted comments opposing Cove Point.
"FERC's decision to allow LNG exports from Cove Point is fundamentally flawed because the agency failed to consider the simple fact that exporting LNG will mean more drilling and fracking, and that means more climate pollution, more risk of contaminated groundwater, and more threats to the health of people who live near gas wells," said Deb Nardone, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Natural Gas campaign. "FERC should be standing up for the public good, not the interests of dirty polluters."
Once in full operation, Cove Point will also emit thousands of tons of dangerous air pollutants and millions of tons of greenhouse gases that will only add to increased climate disruption.
Beyond the increased fracking, the super-cooling process that turns fossil fuel vapor into LNG requires an immense amount of energy -- so much energy, in fact, that the LNG lifecycle is as dirty as coal. The industry wants to build enormous shipping terminals that would pave over fields, fill wetlands, and destroy estuaries.
As Deb noted about this Cove Point approval, FERC continues to bury its head in the sand and conclude that it is impossible to predict the effects related to the production of gas to be exported, or consumption of that gas once it is exported. This is despite the fact that even the Department of Energy agrees that if exports occur, they will induce additional gas production.
The Sierra Club and the coalition against Cove Point also believe that FERC has failed to procide for adequate public participation regarding this project. FERC must develop a full environmental impact statement that covers the entire effect of the project.
Some in Maryland are already planning a rally in response to the bad decision (6pm Tuesday, Sept 30, at 701 E. Pratt Street in Baltimore).
Stay tuned for more news on how we'll fight this decision. And stay involved - Cove Point isn't the only planned LNG export facility in the U.S.
-- Heather Moyer, Sierra Club
As a result of neoliberalism, writes Mark Bittman in the New York Times, “some corporations are more powerful than governments.” This message was a theme of many of the signs and chants at the People’s Climate March, where more than 400,000 participants came together in New York City, many denouncing corporate greed at the expense of a sustainable planet. And nowhere is that power divergence more apparent than in free trade pacts, where a provision called “investor state dispute settlement” (ISDS) empowers corporations to sue governments over nearly any policy that a corporation alleges would reduce its expected future profits.
The Dominican Republic, for example, faces two new corporate challenges to its environmental policies. Instead of supporting the Dominican Republic’s right to implement environmental safeguards, the U.S. is pushing to expand these “investor” rights in new trade agreements currently under negotiation—the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the European Union.
Under the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), Corona, a Florida-based construction materials company (not to be confused with the beer), has announced a case against the Dominican Republic for $100 million because the Dominican Republic denied Corona an environmental license to mine for construction materials after citing concerns about the proposed project’s risks to waterways. Separately, three U.S. investors are threatening to bring a case against the Dominican Republic for not allowing them to “extend” a resort—which already includes luxury homes, a restaurant with a rotating floor and tennis courts— into a neighboring national park. The coveted “extension” would allow the developers to construct a second restaurant, spa, and “world-class boutique hotel.
It’s important to note that around 41 percent of Dominicans live below the poverty line, and the richest (overwhelmingly white) 10 percent of the population owns most of the land and enjoys around 40 percent of the national income. In their notice of intent to sue the Dominican Republic, the developers hoping to expand the luxury resort emphasize that they have “developed a deep love and affection for the country’s people and their culture.” But if these cases move forward and the investors win, it’s the Dominican taxpayers that would pay the millions of dollars in compensation. Even if the Dominican Republic were to win these cases, taxpayers could be forced to pay for a share of tribunal costs, which average $8 million per case.
Neither domestic nor international courts determine the outcomes of ISDS cases. They take place before three attorneys in private trade tribunals. Many of these attorneys rotate between acting as tribunal “judges” and as the lawyers launching cases against governments on behalf of the corporations. ISDS also exists in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which recently empowered a U.S. oil and gas company to sue the government of Canada for $250 million in response to a fracking moratorium around the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. To date, ISDS in free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties has allowed corporations including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Chevron to file nearly 600 cases against almost 100 governments.
The Dominican Republic cases may seem surprising, but cases like this are quickly becoming the norm. Last week, for example, people gathered in front of the World Bank to protest an investment case brought by Oceanagold Corporation, an Australian mining company, against El Salvador, simply because the country denied the company a gold mining permit. Communities in El Salvador are concerned about mining’s costs to water quality, since 90 percent of the country’s surface water is already heavily contaminated. Yet even while protests against ISDS gain international momentum, our own government continues to promote ISDS in massive new trade agreements which could further empower big corporations to challenge countries’ environmental policies.
These cases give a taste of the consequences that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could have both abroad and in the U.S. We know that the TPP includes ISDS and that the TTIP will likely include it unless negotiators listen to the massive public opposition on both sides of the Atlantic. If approved with ISDS, these trade agreements would empower tens of thousands of new corporations from around the world to sue the U.S. and other governments for federal, state, and regional policies that protect communities and safeguard the environment.
You can take action now, and let our government officials know that you oppose investor-state dispute settlement in all current and future trade pacts.
--Courtenay Lewis, Campaign Representative, Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program
The world’s largest public financier of overseas coal-fired power plants is facing serious pressure to move beyond coal.
Earlier this month, four residents of the central Java district of Batang, Indonesia were in Tokyo to protest the Japanese government’s support for a proposed $4 billion coal-fired power plant slated to be built in Batang. Since it’s inception in 2011, the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)-funded coal project has been subject to fierce local resistance. Residents refusing to sell their land have already delayed the start of construction for over two years, but, in turn, activists have faced harassment and arrests over their efforts to protect their land.
Yet, the community members refuse to give up their fight, concerned that pollution from the coal-fired power plant will negatively affect fertile agricultural land and fragile coastal fishing zones which support the livelihoods of many local villagers. Locals are also worried about the health effects of pollutants contaminating the area’s air and water.
The 2,000-megawatt plant is poised to be the largest coal-fired power plant in Southeast Asia at an estimated cost of 400 billion yen (U.S. $4 billion). Riodi and Taryun, two of the Batang natives who traveled to Japan, were delegated by local Japanese residents to meet with officials from JBIC.
“We want to express our refusal directly to the responsible parties: Japan’s Ministry of Finance and the key companies, Itochu and J Power,” said Riodi in Tokyo last Tuesday. “After fruitless attempts in Central Java, and in the capital Jakarta, we hope our journey to Japan can ensure the cancellation of the power plant construction in our villages”.
Thanks to their efforts, parliamentarians from two Japanese opposition parties -- Mizuho Fukushima, an ex-minister who lead the Social Democratic Party from 2003-2013, and Naoto Sakaguchi, director-general of the international department of the Restoration Party of Japan -- have lent their support to the Indonesian community representatives.
Securing opposition to this coal project in Japan will be a major victory considering JBIC is the world’s leading financier of coal and Japan has provided more international funding to coal than any other country. Clearly, getting the Japanese government out of the dirty coal business is no small task, but these activists are not alone.
A new norm amongst the international community has solidified over the past year: a swift and sweeping transition away from financing new coal-fired plants overseas by many OECD countries -- including the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and other Nordic countries. Each of these countries have established strict restrictions for the support for overseas coal-fired power plants. In fact, just this week at the UN Climate Summit, the German government announced plans to offer its own restrictions for overseas coal financing.
In addition, these countries’ large international financial institutions (IFIs) -- like the World Bank Group -- have enacted similar coal financing policies.
However, it seems as though the World Bank -- which is still pondering its test case of these coal financing policies in Kosovo -- is actively defying its own coal ban by participating in this Japanese coal project. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) helped create the Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund. This fund has provided a $33.9 billion guarantee for the Batang coal-fired power plant. Furthermore, the World Bank’s infrastructure project in Indonesia includes policies to subsidize and promote over 40 coal projects worldwide.
With the world’s nations committed to limiting climate disruption and keeping a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, Japan and JBIC do not have the luxury of continued investment in burning or extracting dirty coal.
The health of our climate and our communities is at stake. It’s time for Japan to join the international community. It’s time to move beyond coal.
-- Rohan Bhatia, International Climate Program Intern
by Gina Coplon-Newfield and Zan Dubin-Scott
In 152 cities and 39 US states, more than 90,000 people attended events last week associated with the 2014 National Drive Electric Week. Getting people into plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) to experience the fun, quiet, and clean air benefits of EVs first-hand was part of the point. Event organizers from San Diego alone reported 600 test rides, and Littleton, CO reported a respectable 200. All told from our city captains, we estimate that there were more than 5,500 test rides in plug-in cars at our events.
California Governor Jerry Brown celebrated National Drive Electric Week by signing a number of new EV programs into law. One measure sets a goal of one million plug-in vehicles on the road in California by the end of 2022, about a tenfold increase in the next eight years. The legislation directs the state Air Resources Board to draft a plan to meet that goal and make sure that disadvantaged communities can participate. The policies will also ensure that it's easier for EV drivers to install charging units in apartment building parking areas. "We face an existential challenge with the changes in our climate," Brown said about the EV programs and other environmental initiatives he announced on Sunday, timed to coincide with a United Nations climate summit. "The time to act is now. The place to look is California. We're not finished, but we sure are setting the pace."
In New York City on Sunday, an estimated 400,000 people took to the streets to demand serious action among world leaders to address climate change. As part of Drive Electric Week, our 'EV Bloc' participated in the People's Climate March with signs like "Don't Pollute on Your Commute."
Public officials nationwide came out in droves to test drive and promote plug-in cars last week. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington issued a Drive Electric Week proclamation for his state. There was a "wicked strong" showing at the Cranston, RI event: U.S. senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressmen Jim Langevin and David Cicilline, Mayor Allan Fung, and Rhonde Island Office of Energy Resources Commissioner Marion Gold all turned out to celebrate plug-in cars in the ocean state. In Juneau, Alaska, several mayors, Attorney General Michael Geraghty, and state representative Cathy Munoz gathered for test drives and promotion of new charging stations.
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore was among many mayors who issued ‘drive electric' proclamations for their cities and towns. Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles said in his own proclamation, presented at UCLA, that EVs "reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, and support a healthy environment and economy."
Cupertino's celebration peaked when a judge with GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS® pronounced a new record for most all-electric vehicles in a parade: 507. The fume-free procesion, cheered on by a crowd of a couple thousand, was organized by San Francisco BayLEAFs and the Silicon Valley chapter of the Electric Auto Association, an enduring granddaddy founded in 1967. Among parade EVs was the AC Propulsion tzero, upon which Tesla Motors based its Roadster, and Stella. With onboard solar panels, this low-slung, four-passenger car is said to produce twice as much energy as it uses in an average day. It won the 2013 World Solar Challenge, a competition that launched the storied EV1 and our era's EV resurgence. Stella was designed and built by students of the Eindhoven University of Technology in The Netherlands.
Many other students participated in Drive Electric Week this year, thanks to our new Ambassador Schools initiative. Still in pilot phase, we expect to have more about this program next year, but the idea is to raise awareness of EVs among youth. In Murray, Utah, about 450 of young and old alike got to check out not only electric cars, but also electric motorcycles, bicycles, and lawn-mowers. Even Mike Lookinland, also known as Bobby Brady from The Brady Bunch, showed up to talk about his love for EVs.
We at Plug In America, the Sierra Club and the Electric Auto Association could not have put on National Drive Electric Week without the hundreds of volunteers and dozens of partner groups at the local level, including many Clean Cities Coalitions. We also appreciated the promotion from allied groups, such as the 11th Hour Project, which announced during Drive Electric Week several exciting newly funded EV grant projects. Our friends at Union of Concerned Scientists took the opportunity to issue new blog posts on the scientifically proven benefits of plug-in cars, including: How do EVs Compare with Gas-Powered Vehicles? Better Every Year…; and How Clean are Electric Cars? A Life Cycle Assessment of Advanced Vehicle Technologies.
Most of the events were in the US, but gatherings took place in four other nations as well. Many thanks go to sponsors and other supporters in the US and abroad. Automakers, dealerships, solar and EV-charging equipment companies, as well as municipalities, government agencies, and universities are among them. It wouldn't be fair to name only a few, but we do want to send a shout out to our exclusive automotive sponsor, Nissan LEAF.
Media interest in National Drive Electric Week was unprecedented this year, with coverage appearing in more than 180 national and local outlets. The Weather Channel broadcast prime-time TV news coverage, and EV owners of all sorts got some ink from coast-to-coast. Attending a Woodland Hills, Calif. event, Linda Tcimpidis spoke to a reporter with the Los Angeles Daily News. "I love this car," said Leaf driver Tcimpidis, 61. Added the event's 17-year-old organizer, Eric Doroski: "It's the future of cars, being plugged in."
National Drive Electric Week was a hit on social media, too, reaching a peak of 3.4 million Twitter users. If you want to spread the good news about plug-in cars, please share this article. Also, post a comment to let us know how your local event went and how charged up you are.
Photo 1: an EV parade in Copenhagen, courtesy of John Krøll; Photo 2: Kendra Griffin with her sons in New York City, courtesy of Gina Coplon-Newfield; Photo 3: workplace charging event in Wellesley, MA, courtesy of Bob Frechette Photography and John Hancock Property Management.
Gina Coplon-Newfield directs the Sierra Club’s Future Fleet & Electric Vehicles Initiative. Zan Dubin-Scott is founder of National Drive Electric Week and the Communications Director at Plug In America.
Earlier this month activists in Bridgeport, Connecticut, cheered when city council members took a bold step in moving the city (and state!) beyond coal.
A bi-partisan resolution that calls for the retirement of the state's last coal plant -- the Bridgeport Harbor Station -- and a community transition process passed out of the city council's Economic and Community Development and Environmental Concerns subcomittee. Granted, this is a non-binding resolution, but activists say it's still a great step that will encourage other residents and officials to see the momentum and call for the plant's retirement as well.
"This will send a strong message that Bridgeport wants to move beyond coal, and that the city wants to do so in a way that protects the community and the workers," says Onte Johnson, a Beyond Coal organizer in Bridgeport.
The next step for the resolution is a review and possible final approval from the full city council on October 6. Between now and then, Johnson says even more work will be done by local activists in coalition with the Sierra Club, the Healthy Connecticut Alliance, and other community groups. He adds that this resolution evolved from an earlier push by a city councilman who the Sierra Club educated about the effects of the coal plant on children's health.
See a good wrap-up of the vote from earlier this month and a talk about the next steps by Johnson in this video.
A Resolution by the Bridgeport City Council regarding Bridgeport Harbor Station
WHEREAS, the operation of coal fired power plants has an ongoing negative impact on air and water quality; and
WHEREAS, state legislation has reduced sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions statewide by 90 percent; and
WHEREAS, the Bridgeport Coal plant emits thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter into the air in Bridgeport and these emissions are much higher for a coal plant than for other fossil fuels, including natural gas; and
WHEREAS, the process for moving the coal to the plant sends plumes of coal dust into the air impacting Long Island Sound, Bridgeport Harbor and the East End of Bridgeport; and
WHEREAS, such activity impairs the health of nearby residents and the community; and
WHEREAS, the children of Bridgeport continue to have exhibit elevated levels of respiratory issues, including asthma; and
WHEREAS, those children come from homes which are most in need and most financially vulnerable; and
WHEREAS, coal-fired power plants, like Bridgeport Harbor Station, have been losing market share and revenue in the New England electricity market to the point that many plant owners have suffered large financial losses, written off billions in value and/or have retired coal-fired power plants with little or no notice to the host community thereby creating a loss of jobs and revenue.
WHEREAS, the city of Bridgeport must proactively plan for transition and the potential retirement of Bridgeport Harbor Station in order to protect the community, public health, and the environment.
Now therefore, be it hereby RESOLVED BY THE BRIDGEPORT CITY COUNCIL:
1. The City calls upon PSEG to phase out the coal-fired electricity generation at Bridgeport Harbor Station at the earliest possible date;
2. The City shall undertake a Transition Initiative that shall include both a Reuse Study and the establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee in order establish a redevelopment analysis initiative to research and develop a plan for the reuse of the Bridgeport coal plant site. Reuse alternatives must bring good, green jobs to the city and improve the quality of life for all those who live and work in our community.
The Transition Initiative shall Include the establishment of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) by the Mayor's office December 31, 2014 as an integral part of the Bridgeport redevelopment analysis in order to:
1. represent the affected community, residents, and workers,
2. provide input to the redevelopment analysis process, and
3. provide public outreach as the redevelopment analysis begins and progresses.
4. Collaborate with the City of Bridgeport’s Economic Development Department by December 31, 2014, to
o pursue funding for a professional reuse study;
o develop a framework for the study and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for qualified contractors;
o in the study, explore possibilities and propose sustainable alternatives/solutions for the site as well as the workers affected by a potential closing and explore opportunities including but not limited to legislation or other mechanisms to support Bridgeport revenues impacted by reduced operations and or retirement of Bridgeport Harbor Station;
The CAC shall operate in accordance with precepts of open and accessible public process and hold at least 4 meetings a year. The CAC shall include, but not be limited to, community leaders, relevant city councilors, union representatives, and PSEG representatives, public health organizations. The CAC can elect to add members through a majority vote and with approval of the Economic Development Department. The CAC shall develop and implement a public engagement plan. The Economic Department will report to the Mayor and City Council on the progress of the redevelopment analysis at least quarterly;
3. The City calls upon the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to act to protect public health and air and water quality in Bridgeport and Bridgeport Harbor by acting expeditiously on any and all expired or extended permits for the facility, including but not limited to the NPDES permit which was issued in 1999 and has yet to be renewed despite the Clean Water Act’s mandatory five-year permit terms and the significant impingement and entrainment mortality and thermal loading attributable to Bridgeport Harbor Station;
4. The City Clerk Is Authorized And Directed To Provide Copies Of This Resolution To The Mayor, The Public Utilities Control Authority, The Commissioner Of Energy And Environmental Protection and the PSEG Company.
END of resolution
At Tuesday’s United Nations Climate Summit, political and economic leaders came together to announce new actions and launch new initiatives to help tackle the climate crisis. Over 125 world leaders and hundreds of CEOs participated, making it the largest such meeting on climate disruption in history. The meeting had two objectives: to catalyze ambitious action to reduce climate-disrupting emissions and strengthen resilience; and to mobilize political will for an ambitious global agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2°C rise in global temperature.
But even with all the presidents, prime ministers, and corporate bigwigs in attendance, the day belonged to Kathy Jetnil-Kijinera, a 26-year-old poet from the Marshall Islands who gave civil society’s opening statement. Her astonishing poem, in the form of a video message to her infant daughter, captured the moment in a way that none of the assembled luminaries could. It was at once unflinching in describing the human stakes, uncompromising in calling out those who impede progress, and unshakable in its faith in the power of ordinary people to force their leaders to take action. Coming on the heels of Sunday’s People’s Climate March, in which 400,000 people marched through New York City demanding that our leaders pursue jobs, justice, and a prosperous economy powered by clean energy, it was a powerful call for continued civic engagement. Watch it here. It’s the most inspiring 3 minutes you’ll spend today--assuming you can watch it just once.
It would be tempting to say that the rest of the event was disappointing by comparison--the usual dronings for which the United Nations is so frequently taken to task. And in fact, much of it was. But there was also cause for optimism to be found in a range of commitments and initiatives that will help address the crisis, and will build political momentum for the more transformative actions that countries have agreed to announce in early 2015 in the runup to the Paris negotiations. Some highlights included:
China’s announcement that it will put forward its plan to reduce emissions in early 2015, and that it will seek to peak its emissions “as soon as possible.” Coupled with the recent news that China’s voracious appetite for coal may be waning, this raises the real possibility that China will be able to peak its emissions much earlier than previously projected.
Denmark’s announcement that it will be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2035, and the commitment of other countries such as Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Ethiopia and Iceland to be carbon neutral by 2050.
France’s commitment to contribute $1 billion to the initial capitalization of the Green Climate Fund.
Germany’s announcement that it will no longer use its development assistance to fund overseas coal projects, ending an important source of public subsidy for coal plants.
And, of course, President Obama’s call for his fellow world leaders to lead on tackling the climate crisis – as he called it, the “one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
In addition to the country commitments, a number of promising initiatives were launched to expand financing for clean energy, improve the efficiency of cities, limit deforestation, strengthen climate resilience and improve agricultural practices. The full range of commitments and initiatives can be found here.
But even if all of these initiatives were flawlessly implemented and wildly successful, they would not save Ms. Jetnil-Kijinera’s daughter and her compatriots from the fate that threatens them:
lucid, sleepy lagoon lounging against the sunrise…will devour you…
[and] you, your daughter and your granddaughter, too
will wander rootless
with only a passport to call home
That will take far more ambition from political leaders—and more vigilant, sustained public pressure to force them to act. That’s why the hundreds of thousands who marched on Sunday know these were only the first steps for a growing, strengthening movement.
--Steve Herz, Senior Attorney, International Climate Program, Sierra Club