tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/us-clean-power-plan-19248/articlesUS Clean Power Plan – The Conversation2023-05-16T12:41:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2048892023-05-16T12:41:27Z2023-05-16T12:41:27ZEPA’s crackdown on power plant emissions is a big first step – but without strong certification, it will be hard to ensure captured carbon stays put<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526015/original/file-20230513-80599-50hj2p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=836%2C0%2C2108%2C1350&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Power plants contribute a quarter of the United States' climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/polluted-beauty-royalty-free-image/991612992">Howard C via Getty images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. government is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-new-carbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-tackle">planning to crack down</a> on power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, a lot of money is about to pour into technology that can capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks and lock it away.</p>
<p>That raises an important question: Once carbon dioxide is captured and stored, how do we ensure it stays put?</p>
<p>Power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, release a lot of carbon dioxide. As that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps heat near the Earth’s surface, <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide">driving global warming</a>. </p>
<p>But if CO₂ emissions can be captured instead and <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport.pdf">locked away for thousands of years</a>, existing fossil fuel power plants could meet the proposed new federal standards and reduce their impact on climate change. </p>
<p>We <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XO3TyEUAAAAJ&hl=en">work on</a> carbon capture and storage technologies <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/172390">and policies</a> as a scientist and an engineer. One of us, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jOPykuwAAAAJ&hl=en">Klaus Lackner</a>, proposed a tenet more than two decades ago that is echoed in the proposed standards: For all carbon extracted from the ground, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1323-0_3">an equal amount</a> must be disposed of safely and permanently. </p>
<p>To ensure that happens, carbon capture and storage needs an effective certification system. </p>
<h2>EPA’s proposed carbon crackdown</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power">proposed new power plant rules</a>, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 11, 2023, are based on performance standards for carbon dioxide releases. They aren’t yet finalized, and they <a href="https://theconversation.com/bidens-strategy-for-cutting-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-could-extend-the-lives-of-fossil-fuel-power-plants-204723">likely will face fierce legal challenges</a>, but the industry is paying attention.</p>
<p>Power plant owners could meet the proposed standards in any number of ways, including by shutting down fossil fuel-powered plants and replacing them with renewable energy such as solar or wind.</p>
<p>For those planning to continue to burn natural gas or coal, however, capturing the emissions and storing them long term is the most likely option. </p>
<h2>How CCS works for power plants</h2>
<p>Carbon capture typically starts at the smokestack with <a href="https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/carbon-capture-and-storage-101">chemical “scrubbers</a>” that can remove more than 90% of carbon dioxide emissions. The captured CO₂ is compressed and sent through pipelines for storage.</p>
<p>At most storage sites, CO₂ is injected <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/natcarb-atlas">into underground reservoirs</a>, typically in porous rocks more than 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) below the surface. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cutaway and closeup shows how CO2 is trapped in rock pore spaces." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cutaway of the Earth shows how impermeable rocks cap CO₂ reservoirs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/">Global CCS Institute</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Geologists look for sites with multiple layers of protection, including impermeable rock layers above the reservoir that can prevent gas from leaking out. In some sites, CO₂ chemically reacts with minerals and is eventually immobilized as a solid carbonate.</p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage is <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-epas-new-power-plant-standards-proposal-gives-it-a-boost-but-ccs-is-not-a-quick-solution-205462">currently expensive</a>, and developing the pipeline and storage infrastructure will likely take years. But as more CCS projects are built – helped by some <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/45q-enhancements">generous tax credits</a> in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – costs are likely to drop.</p>
<p>The Sleipner project in the North Sea has been putting away <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217317174%5d.">roughly 1 million</a> metric tons of CO₂ a year since 1996. In Iceland, CO₂ is injected into volcanic basalt rocks, where it reacts with the stone and rapidly <a href="https://www.carbfix.com/">forms solid mineral carbonates</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A US map shows reservoirs across the Plains, Southeast and Midwest in particular, as well as the coasts." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several regions of the U.S. have geological reservoirs with the potential to store captured carbon dioxide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-sequestration-overview_.html">Environmental Protection Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the U.S., companies have been injecting CO₂ into underground reservoirs for decades – initially, as a way to force more oil out of the ground. Today, these “enhanced oil recovery” projects can receive tax credits for the CO₂ that remains underground. As a result, some now inject more carbon into the ground than they extract as oil. </p>
<p>While there have been no notable CO₂ releases from geologic storage, <a href="https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M292/K947/292947433.PDF">other gas storage leaks demonstrate</a> that injection has to follow well-defined safety rules. Nothing is guaranteed. </p>
<p>That’s why monitoring and certification are essential.</p>
<h2>How to effectively certify carbon storage</h2>
<p>The EPA has rules for CO₂ storage sites, but they are focused on protecting drinking water rather than the climate. Under <a href="https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide">those rules</a>, monitoring is required for all phases of the project and for 50 years after closing to check the safety of the groundwater and ensure that material injected underground does not contaminate it.</p>
<p>However, the current <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/permanence-safety">monitoring techniques</a> don’t measure the amount of carbon stored, and the rules do not require that leaked carbon be replaced. </p>
<p>To provide more direction, we developed a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">certification framework</a> designed to ensure that all carbon is stored safely and for the tens of thousands of years necessary to safeguard the climate.</p>
<p>We envision liability for the captured carbon dioxide shifting from the power plant owner to the storage site operator once the carbon dioxide is transferred. That would mean the storage site operator would be held liable for any leaks.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">the framework</a>, a certificate authority would vet storage operators and issue certificates of carbon sequestration for stored carbon. These certificates could have market value if, as the EPA suggests, power plant operators are held responsible for the carbon stored. Future regulations could expand this requirement to other emitters, or simply demand that any carbon released is cleared by a corresponding certificate showing the same amount of carbon has been sequestered.</p>
<p>Careful monitoring, paired with certification that requires storage site owners to make up any losses, could help avoid <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/shell-ccs-facility-in-canada-emits-more-than-it-captures-study-says.html">greenwashing</a> and ensure that the investments meet the nation’s climate goals. </p>
<p><iframe id="Fsawi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Fsawi/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Certification can be useful for carbon stored in any quantifiable storage reservoir, including trees, oceans and human infrastructure such as cement. We believe a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">universal approach to certification</a> that sets minimum requirements and responsibilities is necessary to assure that carbon is stored safely with a guarantee of permanence, regardless of how it is done.</p>
<p>Climate change will <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/04/04/quantifying-risks-to-the-federal-budget-from-climate-change/">cost trillions of dollars</a>, and the federal government is putting <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/carbon-removal-BIL-IRA">billions into research and tax breaks</a> to encourage development of carbon capture and storage sites. To avoid dubious methods, corner-cutting and greenwashing, carbon storage will have to be held to high standards. The U.S. can’t afford to pin a large chunk of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/">its climate strategy</a> on carbon storage without proof.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204889/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Arcusa receives funding from Arizona State University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Klaus Lackner receives funding from Arizona State University and the Kaiteki Institute at ASU.</span></em></p>Fossil fuel power plants can avoid most emissions by capturing carbon dioxide and pumping it underground. But to be a climate solution, that carbon has to stay stored for thousands of years.Stephanie Arcusa, Postdoctoral Researcher in Carbon Sequestration, Arizona State UniversityKlaus Lackner, Professor of Engineering and Director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/753912017-03-29T06:32:45Z2017-03-29T06:32:45ZTrump tears down US climate policy, but America could lose out as a result<p>US President Donald Trump has followed through on his promise to undo Barack Obama’s climate policies, signing an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1">executive order</a> to review his predecessor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/epa-clean-power-plan-17859">Clean Power Plan</a> and any other regulations that “burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources”. The move potentially paves the way for the United States to walk away from its commitments under the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris Climate Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>America’s leadership on climate change has been patchy at best, yet under Obama the country made an <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">important diplomatic shift</a> – one that now looks to be fundamentally unravelling. Trump’s executive order, released on Tuesday, aims to dismantle the network of institutions and laws that regulate greenhouse emissions, and those that conduct globally important research to track climate change. The consequences, both at home and abroad, will be severe.</p>
<p>The order comes as little surprise. Trump, after all, has previously <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385">claimed</a> that climate change is a conspiracy perpetrated by the Chinese government to gain economic advantage at America’s expense, and made a campaign promise to undo the Paris deal. His administration has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former chief executive of ExxonMobil. Trump also greenlit the controversial Dakota Access pipeline.</p>
<p>Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) caused alarm among environmental activists and EPA staff alike. Pruitt has a history of suing the EPA during his time as Attorney General of Oklahoma, and hundreds of recently released emails attest to his <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-oklahoma/">close relationship with the oil and gas industry</a>. </p>
<p>The new executive order signals that Trump does not want climate research to be carried out by government agencies such as the EPA, NASA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).</p>
<p>In a speech to Congress earlier this month, he outlined plans to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/trump-s-epa-budget-cuts-may-unleash-a-backlash-as-risks-remain">slash the EPA’s budget</a>. He has also pledged to reinvigorate the coal industry, and the Republican-controlled House has already <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/317193-house-to-repeal-obama-coal-rule-wednesday">rolled back</a> an Obama-era regulation that prevented coal companies dumping their waste in rivers.</p>
<h2>China leading the climate race</h2>
<p>The irony is that while Trump may believe that the <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/191/2f9207c6269c49724f77368618b19a7107ced0f3/site/index.html?&lat=-25&lng=-25&zoom=3">emissions targets agreed upon in Paris</a> would weaken the US economy, particularly against China, the reverse is actually closer to the truth. </p>
<p>As my colleague Ben Habib <a href="http://asaa.asn.au/china-set-lead-global-climate-politics/">recently argued</a>, China now leads the world in renewable energy investment, a trend that will see it dominate the market in the decades to come. The Paris targets are one way that other countries can similarly encourage clean energy investment. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, China’s plans to move away from its heavy use of coal-fired electricity generation means the price of coal will continue to fall, making America’s cherished coal industry less profitable and exacerbating the economic and social costs to coal mining communities. With many analysts warning of a potential “<a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/beware-carbon-bubble">carbon bubble</a>”, Trump is in danger of backing the wrong horse.</p>
<p>The Chinese government’s desire to move away from fossil fuels is driven partly by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/beijing-smog-pollution-red-alert-declared-in-china-capital-and-21-other-cities">serious domestic pollution and health issues</a>. Instead of cutting research funds, the US should pay similar attention to the health of its own citizens.</p>
<p>America’s huge size and geographical diversity means it is likely to experience many different climate impacts, from coastal flooding and <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21717324-fears-californias-huge-oroville-dam-might-fail-have-subsidedfor-time-being-drought">severe storms</a> to <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap27_FINAL.pdf">drought</a> and wildfires.</p>
<h2>Global impacts</h2>
<p>The Pentagon has <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/">repeatedly warned</a> that climate change is a threat to global security that will make existing challenges even harder to deal with. </p>
<p>Competition over scarce resources such as food and water have already contributed to the <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1">civil war in Syria</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/drought-east-africa-climate-change">increasingly violent conflicts</a> over food and farmland in the Horn of Africa. These conflicts have contributed to a growing mass migration crisis, and longer droughts and irregular rainfall in agricultural regions will impact global food prices.</p>
<p>People in the Pacific Islands will likely lose their homes to sea level rise, potentially adding further to the migration of refugees from around the world. Some of the poorest countries in the world, including <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/warmer-world-threatens-livelihoods-in-south-east-asia">the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand</a>, will also face the impacts of sea-level rise, yet lack the resources to adapt to the changing environment. More frequent and intense storms and extreme weather events such as cyclones will create humanitarian crises that will require an international response.</p>
<p>Many of these crises will require an American response, whether through the provision of disaster relief and support, or through managing increased migration. When it comes to violent conflict as a result of climate-related tensions, it is likely that America would face immense global pressure to intervene. </p>
<p>It is clear that Trump has less appetite for international intervention than his predecessors. But nor does the White House appear to place any value on managing America’s own vulnerability to climate change.</p>
<p>If Trump’s climate policy takedown is successful, he may well find himself presiding over a country that is weakened economically, socially and politically, both at home and abroad.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kumuda Simpson is affiliated with the NTEU Climate Action Network. </span></em></p>Donald Trump has signalled the end of US leadership on climate policy, with potentially unpleasant consequences for America’s economy, security and diplomatic standing.Kumuda Simpson, Lecturer in International Relations, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/686162016-11-15T02:55:20Z2016-11-15T02:55:20ZWhy Trump’s vow to kill Obama’s sustainability agenda will lead business to step in and save it<p>During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2016/11/11/donald-trump-says-climate-change-is-a-hoax-lets-discuss/#59431bd41d50">called climate change a hoax</a>, threatened to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/26/republican-candidates-donald-trump-eliminate-epa-law-experts">dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency</a>, committed to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/investing/donald-trump-energy-plan/">easing restrictions</a> on drilling and mining on federal lands, and promised to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-22/trump-vows-to-speed-energy-projects-as-obama-halts-pipeline">push for oil pipelines and other controversial energy infrastructure</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps most troubling to the sustainability community, however, is his vow to abolish President Barack Obama’s executive actions on climate change, such as the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a>. He also promised to withdraw from the <a href="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php">Paris climate accord</a>, which he claimed was bad for business and threatened U.S. sovereignty.</p>
<p>Now President-elect Trump has appointed a noted denier of climate change – and of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-things-people-ask-about-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-59243">scientific consensus</a> behind it – to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-epa-myron-ebell-climate-change-505546.html">lead the EPA’s transition team</a>. This has wiped away the faintest glimmer of hope that Trump would <a href="http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/">revert to his view in 2009</a>, when he agreed that climate change was a problem worthy of urgent action. </p>
<p>It’s hard to pretend that any of this will bode well for either the natural environment that society collectively depends upon or the climate and environmental protection agenda set in motion by the Obama administration. Indeed, scientists of all stripes and nationalities are <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-us-election-win-stuns-scientists-1.20952">dismayed</a> by what has happened in the days since the election and are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/09/what-will-president-trump-mean-for-science/">worried</a> about what is likely to happen in coming years.</p>
<p>Many times since Election Day I’ve been asked how Trump might lead when it comes to issues like climate change and the environment. <a href="http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/01/17/the-riskiest-of-public-performances/">My answer has been the same since his campaign began</a>: Don’t hold your breath because, in my view, he won’t lead at all.</p>
<p>However, all may not be lost. Here’s why.</p>
<h2>Business wants it</h2>
<p>Since President Obama took office in 2009, the private sector has helped take responsibility for advancing the nation’s sustainability agenda. </p>
<p>As many businesses have discovered, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/the-planet-saving-capitalism-subverting-surprisingly-lucrative-investment-secrets-of-al-gore/407857/">decoupling economic progress from resource use and environmental decline</a> can also be one of the biggest drivers of future success. In other words, <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/state-green-business-money-flows-where-sustainability-grows">money flows where sustainability grows</a>.</p>
<p>Even before that, businesses – from airlines and auto manufacturers to the oil and gas industry – were beginning to recognize that their long-term viability would depend upon their ability to better account for the environmental costs associated with production. <a href="https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2012/02/building-business-value-exec-summary.pdf">For example</a>, the external environmental costs of 11 key industry sectors, including their upstream suppliers, increased by an estimated 50 percent from 2002 to 2010. This amounted to a loss of approximately 40 cents on every dollar in earnings across a diverse array of businesses, from beverage producers to manufacturers. </p>
<p>Continued attention by companies to these environmental costs is helping to keep some of the barriers to a more sustainable future in check. For example, 2016 marks the second-consecutive year in which <a href="https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html">the rise of climate warming greenhouse gas emissions has been decoupled from economic growth</a>. Sustained progress along similar lines will help to ensure that President Obama’s vision for sustainability stands a chance of enduring despite the relaxed regulatory environment expected under a President Trump.</p>
<h2>Consumers want it</h2>
<p>A related factor, which may help to stem the tide of environmental degradation under Trump, is consumer demand. Consumers in both mature and emerging markets are coming to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08911762.2015.1133869?scroll=top&needAccess=true">expect</a> businesses to produce products and services in a manner that addresses broad sustainability objectives. These include personal health and wellness, social fairness and inclusion, economic stability, ethical production, and the protection of natural resources and the environment. </p>
<p>Likewise, consumers are increasingly <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-sustainability-report-oct-2015.pdf">willing to pay more</a> for goods and services that are being produced with sustainability concerns in mind. Approximately 66 percent of global consumers surveyed by Nielsen report that they are willing to pay more for sustainable goods, up from 50 percent in 2013.</p>
<p>This trend is especially important for consumer-facing brands and companies. <a href="http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/sep/0914-renewable-energy.html">General Motors</a>, for example, has indicated it will generate or source all electrical power for its 350 operations in 59 countries with 100 percent renewable energy – wind, solar and natural gas from landfills – by 2050. <a href="http://www.apple.com/environment/">Apple</a> already receives over 93 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and <a href="http://there100.org/ikea">IKEA</a> has committed to producing as much renewable energy as it consumes by the year 2020.</p>
<p>Commitments like these are also trickling down to suppliers. Across the United States, utilities have <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/05/new-us-map-shows-companies-where-buy-renewable-energy-they-want">increased their investments</a> in renewable energy projects, in part to attract new businesses and to meet the demand of current ones. For example, Consumers Energy in Michigan <a href="https://www.google.fr/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=michigan+switch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=TAoqWLK4C6ek8wfwjanoCw#q=michigan+switch+data+center+renewable">recently promised</a> to provide 100 percent renewable energy in order to lure Las Vegas-based Switch Communications Group and their cloud-based data centers to Michigan. This helps to explain why corporate officers from Consumers Energy were behind the Michigan Senate’s <a href="http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/10/energy-bills-michigan-senate/93589258/">recent approval</a> of a new energy bill that would set a renewable energy standard of 15 percent for state utilities by 2021. </p>
<p>Consumers Energy CEO Patricia Poppe told me recently that her company’s commitment to adding renewable capacity is being driven as much by customer demand as it is by federal regulations like the Clean Power Plan. If this trend continues, and I have no reason to believe it won’t, the private sector can help fill some of the sustainability leadership vacuum created by a Trump administration.</p>
<h2>Workers want it</h2>
<p>There’s also a third factor, which will motivate the private sector to lead where President-elect Trump likely won’t: labor. The long-term success of companies ultimately rests with the visionary thinking of their current employees and – importantly – the next generation of business talent.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://cbey.yale.edu/programs-research/rising-leaders-on-environmental-sustainability-and-climate-change">recent study</a>, business students currently enrolled in top-tier programs around the world say they are more willing to work for companies exhibiting good sustainability performance. Moreover, of the more than 3,700 students surveyed, respondents indicated that they’d be willing to accept lower salaries from companies that were strong performers on the sustainability front. </p>
<p>And, when holding factors like corporate culture and job responsibility constant, nearly 20 percent of those students surveyed indicated they would refuse job offers entirely from companies that perform poorly in terms of sustainability. Results like these strongly suggest that businesses with poor sustainability performance will suffer through an inability to attract top-end talent, as well as through demands for higher salaries from employees who are willing to work them when compared to their more sustainable competitors.</p>
<h2>Election irony</h2>
<p>We shouldn’t be so naïve as to think that, when it comes to sustainability, the private sector can act alone to save the proverbial world. </p>
<p>At this month’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/business/energy-environment/business-leaders-support-steps-to-rescue-climate.html">New York Times Energy for Tomorrow</a> meeting, which I attended, a dominant sentiment expressed by CEOs of some of the world’s most profitable companies was that, when it comes to sustainability, government regulation and action by business must work hand-in-hand. </p>
<p>It’s true that some companies, many in the oil and gas industry, seem like they don’t care about sustainability. However, their true position on the issue is more complicated. Because a majority of companies are obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders, it is difficult to <em>voluntarily</em> curtail profits in the name of sustainability. However, if government <em>requires</em> them to do it, the hard sell to shareholders becomes much softer. This is why many companies have been <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-06-01/even-big-oil-wants-a-carbon-tax">lobbying government</a> to introduce a carbon tax. In the eyes of many companies, the ends justify the means.</p>
<p>But, it appears as though – for at least the next two years before midterm elections – action on this front from the executive and legislative branches of government will be limited at best. </p>
<p>Many voters claimed they cast their ballots for Trump because of his <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/189773/trump-support-built-outsider-status-business-experience.aspx">experience as a businessman</a>. One of the biggest ironies of the election may end up being that the private sector becomes a firewall between a Trump-led White House and President Obama’s strong pro-sustainability leadership that preceded it. </p>
<p>Time will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68616/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Arvai has received funding from organizations like the National Science Foundation, and from corporations, to conduct research on, and to develop guidelines for decision-making processes that balance social, environmental, and economic objectives. He also serves as the Director of the Fredrick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.</span></em></p>Trump has promised to abolish Obama’s Clean Power Plan and back out of the Paris climate accord. But business could become a key firewall that won’t let Obama’s sustainability legacy die.Joe Árvai, Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, and Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/685972016-11-11T12:42:21Z2016-11-11T12:42:21ZThe view from Marrakech: climate talks are battling through a Trump tsunami<p>Stunned. Shocked. Speechless. Devastated. Political tsunami. These were the key words rising to the surface of the babble of conversations that took place in the corridors of the climate negotiations in Marrakech on Wednesday 9 November – the day Donald Trump won the US presidency.</p>
<p>A climate denier, Trump has vowed to tear up the historic <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris Agreement</a> along with the Obama administration’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/president-obama-climate-action-plan#section-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a>, which seeks to slash greenhouse emissions from power plants. He has also given the green light to renewed fossil fuel exploitation in the United States. </p>
<p>Oil and gas stocks unsurprisingly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKBN134024">rose</a>, and coal stocks <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN1342E0">soared</a>, on his victory day. If implemented, Trump’s promises would make it impossible for the United States to reach its national pledge under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 26-28% relative to 2005 by 2025.</p>
<p>At the moment, Trump’s previous declaration of climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine US industry looks particularly poignant.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"265895292191248385"}"></div></p>
<p>His election is a dramatic turnaround from the years of constructive bilateral climate diplomacy by the Obama administration with China, which culminated in the joint <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">US-China statement on climate change</a> in November 2014. This joint announcement of the headline national action plans by the world’s two biggest emitters (together covering 40% of global emissions) injected significant momentum into the negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement in 2015.</p>
<p>But now the US elections have delivered not just a presidential victory against action on climate change, but made it much easier for Trump to deliver on his plans than it was for Obama. The Republican Party is now set to control all four branches of government: the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency and soon the Supreme Court (once Trump nominates a new judge following the death of Justice Scalia, bringing the number of judges back to nine, with a conservative majority). This leaves only the media and civil society to speak up for a safe climate in the face of the national government’s agenda.</p>
<h2>Turning back time</h2>
<p>Seasoned negotiators and observers at Marrakech with long memories recalled the moment in 2001 when former president George W. Bush declared that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor to the Paris Agreement. This withdrawal cast a long shadow over the negotiations, which was finally lifted with the Obama administration’s re-engagement with climate change that made the Paris breakthrough possible.</p>
<p>Yet the world today is very different to what it was in 2001. The Paris Agreement is <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-climate-agreement-enters-into-force-international-experts-respond-68124">now in force</a> after a speedy ratification, the US share of global emissions has declined, and renewable energy is now much cheaper. Many US states, cities and businesses will continue to work towards reducing emissions, and many Republican politicians have let go of their aversion to renewable energy in response to public and business pressure. </p>
<p>In short, much of America and the rest of the world will continue to build momentum under the Paris Agreement, despite the changing of the guard in Washington DC.</p>
<p>Given Trump’s record of policy flip-flopping, it also remains an open question as to how far he will actually go to undo the diplomatic climate legacy of the Obama administration. Much will depend on who takes over as Secretary of State, and how the State Department assesses the broader diplomatic consequences of withdrawing from the Paris treaty, particularly in terms of transatlantic relationships. European Council president Donald Tusk has already <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-eu-invitation-idUKKBN1341GW">invited Trump to attend a US-EU summit</a>. We might therefore see some easing of Trump’s hard anti-climate talk, much as his social rhetoric <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/trump-speech-transcript.html">softened on election night</a>. Trump the President may not be quite the same as Trump the candidate.</p>
<p>Moreover, under Article 28 of the Paris Agreement it will take a total of four years for any formal withdrawal by the United States to take effect. If the US were to turn its back on these legal niceties and abandon its obligations during this period, it would be widely regarded as a climate pariah state. In contrast, China will enjoy its rising status as a climate leader.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, after the initial pause to digest the shock of Trump’s victory, the negotiators at Marrakech have got back down to their business, which is to fill in the implementation details of the Paris Agreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68597/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robyn Eckersley receives funding from the Australian Research Council to research a project called 'What makes a climate leader?'</span></em></p>The halls of the Marrakech climate summit have been filled with fearful talk about Donald Trump’s presidency. But there is hope that the Paris climate treaty can weather the political storm.Robyn Eckersley, Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456492015-08-06T01:48:19Z2015-08-06T01:48:19ZObama’s new climate plan is leadership fuel for other nations<p>President Obama’s new <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">Clean Power Plan</a> is not just a step towards a US economy that does less damage to the climate. It will also encourage further action by other countries and improve prospects for this year’s international negotiations – and will make countries like Australia think even harder about their own strategies. </p>
<p>Listening to Obama announcing the plan earlier this week, you might think he has succeeded in solving the climate change dilemma. Well, not so of course. But the policy is likely to make a difference to the US energy system, and it will bolster confidence in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-2015-climate-summit-countries-targets-beyond-2020-38427">pledges</a> for the Paris climate negotiations. And it raises questions for Australia’s climate and energy policy too. </p>
<p>Obama is clearly looking for a legacy on climate change. The United States has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc">already announced</a> an emissions target of a 26-28% reduction by 2025, relative to 2005. That’s less of a cut than would be expected from the US as part of strong global climate change action. But it is nonetheless a significant pledge, doubling the annual rate of emissions reduction from the existing 17% reduction target for 2020.</p>
<p>Talk can be cheap of course, and the question is always how to deliver on a given target. The United States is on track to meet its 2020 target, thanks in part to cheap natural gas and the recession, but also manifold policy efforts. The next step could be a little harder, depending on gas prices, the cost of renewables, and progress in energy savings. But emissions savings usually come <a href="http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/fs077_australia_can_cut_emissions_deeply_and_the_cost_is_low_21apr15_v3.pdf">cheaper than expected</a>, so the 2025 target is not at all unrealistic. </p>
<p>The new target for the power sector is a 32% emissions cut by 2030, relative to 2005 – so is roughly in line with the overall national trajectory. US power sector emissions account for a little less than a third of overall US greenhouse gas emissions, and the Clean Power Plan might contribute <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/2/9086559/obama-climate-plan-preview">a quarter</a> of the reductions needed to reach the US national target. Much more is planned, including in industry, agriculture, transport, and housing. </p>
<p>But crucially, the power sector plan is a strong expression of political will – and political will is the fuel of the negotiating process. US leadership throughout Obama’s second term has <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-paris-climate-talks-wont-be-another-copenhagen-39591">helped move the international process</a> towards a meaningful new climate agreement.</p>
<h1>Policy as assurance</h1>
<p>At the Paris negotiations in December, it is unlikely that national emissions targets will be a part of a legally binding treaty. But that is not a problem, as long as countries can reassure each other that they are serious in achieving their targets. The best way to do that is to lay out a credible plan complete with policy instruments.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s earlier strategy was to go for a national emissions trading scheme. California <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm">already has one in place</a>, and the northeastern states have <a href="http://www.rggi.org/">traded power-sector emissions</a> for many years. But getting a national emissions trading scheme through Congress is a political impossibility. </p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is Obama’s answer to the political blockage: using executive powers under the Clean Air Act to mandate maximum emissions at the state level. Targets are differentiated, and it is left up to each state how to achieve it. That could turn out to be a smart move to help with acceptability, as it will give each state leeway to arrange things in a way that deals with the specific local political economy, as well as economic and technical aspects.</p>
<h1>But will it live?</h1>
<p>Probably, yes. First though, it will undergo ordeal by litigation, a common feature of serious reform efforts in the United States. As Lynette Molyneaux <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-takes-biggest-step-on-us-climate-policy-experts-react-45644">has already observed on The Conversation</a>, efforts to reduce air pollution in the 1990s faced repeated and lengthy legal challenges before they succeeded. The new plan allows for this, with states not being required to finalise their strategies until 2018. </p>
<p>Neither will it be easy for a hostile future administration to torpedo the plan. This would require a repeat of the arduous <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/outreach-reducing-carbon-pollution-existing-power-plants">consultation process</a> the Environmental Protection Agency has carried out since 2013, in order to publish new draft and then final replacement regulations. Assuming the plan survives the litigation planned by political and industry opponents over the next couple of years, chances are it will remain in place – and perhaps in time achieve the same iconic status as the 1990s legislation.</p>
<h1>Meanwhile, back in Australia…</h1>
<p>…the Government is in the last stages of preparing its post-2020 climate target (called an intended nationally determined contribution, or INDC) to take to the Paris climate negotiations in December. To be credible to other countries, this must include a target at least as ambitious as the American one and commitment to a set of policy instruments that can demonstrably deliver the target. </p>
<p>If the government does this it will confound those who see it as a lost cause, provide the basis for stable national policy on climate change that business is calling for and boost prospects for a substantial result in Paris. Most importantly, it would place Australia and its people on a pathway to prosperity in the new global economy that every day turns further away from the fossil fuel dependency of the past.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo has received research funding from various organisations. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Howard Bamsey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Obama’s new targets for emissions from electricity are a crucial step towards a credible US climate policy. And where the United States leads, others are more likely to follow.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityHoward Bamsey, Adjunct Professor, Regulatory institutions Network, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.