What others are saying about the Paris Climate Agreement

06 Jun What others are saying about the Paris Climate Agreement

 

Post-ABC Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 oppose Trump Scrapping Paris Agreement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/05/post-abc-poll-nearly-6-in-10-oppose-trump-scrapping-paris-agreement/?utm_term=.9dc57de61079&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-hse%252Bnational&wpmk=1

As US withdraws from climate deal, Carolinas companies stick to their own plans
Posted: 01 Jun 2017 02:12 PM PDT
Charlotte Observer
June 1, 2017

BY BRUCE HENDERSON

As critics bemoaned President Trump’s decision Thursday to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, business experts say the move will have little practical effect on Carolinas businesses.

Power companies like Duke Energy are already moving away from coal, the fuel whose carbon emissions are linked to climate change, and toward cheaper, cleaner natural gas and renewable energy. Those moves won’t be reversed because of policy changes.

Many smaller companies, meanwhile, have found that energy efficiency and emission-free rooftop solar panels save them money.

“It’s my personal belief that U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement will have little to no effect on the strategic approach of energy companies in the Carolinas,” said David Doctor, CEO of the Charlotte-based energy trade association E4 Carolinas.

North Carolina fought former President Barack Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants, Doctor said, negating any policy implications of the Paris agreement. But energy companies and their customers have also grown to expect to operate more cleanly than in the past, he added.

“Energy companies, and I would say nearly all, have a clear understanding that clean energy is good business,” he said. “They’re paying attention to their customers much more than they are to policy and world opinion, and their customers have decided that clean energy is good.”

Duke Energy, one of the nation’s biggest utilities, has retired half its 14 coal-fired power plants in North Carolina in recent years and moved to natural gas. It’s also invested heavily in solar and wind energy, including a 200-megawatt wind farm dedicated Wednesday in Oklahoma.

Duke’s corporate goal is to reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030. In a statement Thursday, the company acknowledged that climate change is a “key issue” for many of its stakeholders – and that it has to plan its investments in power generation decades into the future.

“As we continue to modernize our system and deliver increasingly clean energy, reducing emissions cost-effectively remains an important tenet of our investment strategy,” spokeswoman Dawn Santoianni said. “We believe a balanced portfolio of energy resources is important to providing reliable electricity at affordable rates. As we had previously announced, over the next 10 years we plan additional investments of $11 billion in cleaner energy and $25 billion in grid modernization to meet the needs of our customers.”

Santoianni said Duke will work with the administration, Congress and others “to advance energy policies that balance affordability, reliability and protection of the environment and are in the best interests of our customers and investors.”

‘Climate hoaxterism’

Charlotte businessman Jay Faison, founder of the conservative clean-energy foundation ClearPath, said Trump’s decision “is a personal blow to me.”

“I have said many times that we don’t need to agree on the level of climate risk to agree on clean energy solutions,” Faison said in a statement. “However, joining Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not on board assigns zero risk to carbon emissions. The world will move on without us, probably with China in the lead.”

Bob Inglis, a Republican former South Carolina member of Congress who now leads the clean-energy group republicEn.org, issued a withering critique of Trump’s announcement.

“Donald Trump is choosing to become the worldwide face of climate hoaxterism,” Inglis wrote. “When he leaves office, he’s going to take that climate hoaxterism with him. He’s isolated himself in a small encampment at the fringe of civilization – in the company of only Syria and Nicaragua. When America finds its way back to leading the world, this embarrassing episode will be forgotten.”

But Frank Knapp Jr., CEO of South Carolina’s 5,000-member Small Business Chamber of Commerce, predicts Trump’s decision will at most slow the transition of U.S. companies to a low-carbon economy.

Knapp himself will pay off in four years the solar panels he installed on the small Columbia office building he owns. Bigger businesses are making the same calculations, he said.

“Businesses that have to make 10- to 20-year plans have already made their plans for alternative energy and energy efficiency,” he said. “They may be inspired by a desire to reduce their carbon footprint or because they can save money. Businesses are in the business of saving money.”

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute said in a statement that Trump’s decision “will not change the commitment of the … industry to energy efficiency and environmental stewardship.”

Local governments were charting their own paths even as candidate Trump was promising to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris agreement.

Columbia, S.C., Mayor Steve Benjamin said Wednesday he would submit a resolution to the U.S. Conference of Mayors to formally support a goal of 100 percent renewable energy in cities nationwide. The mayors’ conference condemned Trump’s decision.

In Charlotte, mayoral candidate Joel Ford said Thursday that, if elected, he will ask the city council to reaffirm its support for addressing climate change.

And tiny Cottageville, S.C., aims to become the state’s first municipality wholly powered by renewable energy.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article153852884.html

Solar Workers in NC now worried about National Energy Policy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/05/solars-rise-in-north-carolina-lifted-blue-collar-workers-now-theyre-worried-about-trump/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_solar-343pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.66bc61d54645

Coastal Conservation League Speaks Up

TRUMP THE TRANSFORMER

By Dana Beach

Paree will still be laughing after every one of us disappears.
But never once forget, her laughter is the laughter that hides the tears.
And until you’ve lived a lot, and loved lot, and lost a lot,
You don’t know Paree, you don’t know Paree.
-Cole Porter

Folks,

The news this week was all about Paris. Sadly, however, the world’s attention was not focused on the shimmering city of light, (the epithet refers to Paris’ intellectual leadership during the Enlightenment), but on the decidedly unenlightened decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, thus adding a third member (the U.S.) to the esteemed group of two countries that have refused to sign the agreement (Nicaragua and Syria).

Reactions ran the gamut from glowing endorsements to bitter condemnation, with the weight of the responses on the condemnation side of the spectrum. As this article from the Post and Courier reports, there was (predictable) support from South Carolina’s Senator Tim Scott.

P&C: A mixed South Carolina reaction to U.S. withdrawal from Paris climate accord

Senator Scott stated, without evidence or accuracy, that the accord would make achieving economic growth at home “near impossible.” For a refutation of Senator Scott’s assertion, and of much of President Trump’s commentary on the withdrawal, see this next piece from the Washington Post.

WaPo: Fact-checking President Trump’s claims on the Paris climate change deal

The short story is that the Paris Accord 1) is voluntary and 2) allows countries to set their own emission goals, which 3) can be changed unilaterally, so the notion that participation in the agreement threatens economic growth and development is demonstrably false – nonsensical, in fact.

Middlebury College professor and climate champion, Bill McKibben, writes in the New York Times that the withdrawal is a big deal, not only because of the risk non-participation poses to the planet, but also because it is a repudiation of diplomacy and science (two disciplines we formerly regarded as relatively important to the conduct of world affairs).

NYT: McKibben Editorial: Trump’s Stupid and Reckless Climate Decision

From the editorial:

It’s a stupid and reckless decision — our nation’s dumbest act since launching the war in Iraq. But it’s not stupid and reckless in the normal way. Instead, it amounts to a thorough repudiation of two of the civilizing forces on our planet: diplomacy and science. It undercuts our civilization’s chances of surviving global warming, but it also undercuts our civilization itself, since that civilization rests in large measure on those two forces.

David Brooks writes in the Times that Trump’s pulling out of Paris “poisons the world” by adopting “naked selfishness” as America’s motivating principle in the international realm. Brooks notes that great leaders have always called on our higher moral instincts and principles to achieve important things for humanity (and now, for the planet). He observes that humans are selfish, but at the same time, altruistic, cooperative and kind. President Trump, he argues, has adopted what is perhaps an unprecedented view (if we exclude the likes of Pol Pot and Idi Amin) that “selfishness is the sole driver of human affairs.”

NYT: Brooks Editorial: Donald Trump Poisons the World

Moving down the philosophical ladder a few rungs, Ben Adler writes in the Post and Courier that President Trump’s reversal on Paris is nothing but a political stunt, and one that actually works against the goals the Administration has articulated.

P&C: Adler Editorial: Paris pullout merely a political move

Here is an excerpt from the article.

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement serves no practical purpose. It has no benefit other than pandering to the conservative movement’s ideological opposition to multilateralism and environmental regulation.

Even Trump’s own stated policy goals would be better served by staying in the agreement.

And speaking of pandering, this next article from the Post and Courier reports that South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster appears to support the withdrawal – for reasons that remain unclear. His explanation… “I’m with Trump. We’ll be fine. We’re getting better and better.” Hmmm… It’s hard to know what to say about that!

P&C: South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster supports Paris climate accord pullout during Charleston hurricane appearance

This raises a question I’ve touched on in previous emails – What does it mean to be a Republican? Or a conservative? These next two articles are instructive.

The first, from the Washington Post, is an editorial by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas and William K. Reilly, who served as EPA administrators under Presidents Nixon, Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. The Administrators condemn the Trump Administration’s know-nothing dismissal of science, the drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research, and the rejection of the international agreement on climate change.

WaPo: Three Republican EPA administrators: Trump is putting us on a dangerous path

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Today, presented with the undeniable warming of the planet, we are faced with a global environmental threat whose potential harm to people and other living things exceeds any we have seen before. The Paris climate agreement is the international response to that threat…

Yet when confronted with broad-based evidence of planetary warming and the almost daily emerging evidence of the impacts of climate change, Trump’s March “skinny” budget and this week’s final 2018 budget plan say we should look the other way; he has chosen ignorance over knowledge. The need for extensive and accelerated scientific research about the nature of the problem and its possible policy solutions should be beyond question. Not to get more information is inexcusable.

Meanwhile, from the bottom of the country, where the gators bellow and (a few) panthers roam the swamps, this next article condemns the lack of action restoring the Everglades, and it blames the massive destruction of this globally important ecosystem on federal subsidies and the political clout of a few giant sugar companies.

InsideSources: Big Sugar’s Assault on the Everglades

Most people know something about the problems with sugar cane and the Glades, but what struck me as most interesting about this article is that the three sources cited condemning the situation were: The American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. You don’t get any more authoritatively conservative than that! Here is an excerpt from the article:

Americans are aware that the federal sugar program makes their food cost more. But few know this same program is causing environmental wreckage in Florida that their tax dollars will have to pay for.

The sugar program, known to its many critics as the “sugar racket,” is a tangle of price supports, which increase the cost of sugar in the U.S., and tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, which keeps cheaper sugar from reaching our market.

“There’s probably no better example in U.S. history of a case of both legal plunder and crony capitalism that has been tolerated for so many years, and that has picked more money from the pockets of Americans,” than the sugar program, says American Enterprise Institute economist Mark J. Perry, who has shown that “American consumers and domestic sugar-using industries have been forced to pay twice the world price of sugar for many generations.”

Talk about a win-win-win opportunity – eliminate subsidies, reduce sugar prices to the consumer and restore the environment! So, what has our Republican Administration said about breathing life back into Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ magnificent “River of Grass?” Not a word. Which makes one ponder the prospect that there really isn’t much “conservative” about what’s going on in Washington these days.

But… Here’s the good news! The New York Times reports that a growing handful of cities, states, universities and businesses are committing to meeting (and probably exceeding) the Paris emission reduction goals, in spite of (and, probably, because of) the U.S. pulling out.

NYT: Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord

Here is an excerpt:

Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations.

“We’re going to do everything America would have done if it had stayed committed,” Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is coordinating the effort, said in an interview.

This next article, from the Washington Post, (by way of the Standard-Examiner), continues the coverage, revealing that the U.S. Congress of Mayors has formally denounced the withdrawal and adopted a pledge to meet the accord emission reduction benchmarks. From the article:

“We see the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord as an abdication of American leadership and America’s mayors will certainly fill that void,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said in a statement. “We will symbolically sign on and take actions necessary so that America meets its obligations under the Paris Accord, despite actions of this Administration.”

Standard Examiner: Michael Bloomberg pledges his own money to help U.N. after Trump pulls out of Paris climate deal

And it ain’t just Phoenix and New York! This next article, from the Post and Courier, reports that Cottageville, S.C. wants to be the first town to run entirely on renewable (in this case, solar) energy. And it’s not just talk. They are getting close!

P&C: In rural Colleton County, Cottageville aims to be South Carolina’s first fully renewable-powered town

The Post and Courier exhorts other towns and cities to follow Cottageville’s example.

P&C: Editorial: Follow Cottageville’s example to fight climate change

Spiraling down to the basic elements (of soil, and plants, and food), South Carolina ETV star (and a childhood friend) Amanda McNulty is interviewed in this article from the Post and Courier. The host of “Making it Grow” explains how she got into the horticultural arena and then into television. And GrowFood Carolina gets a wonderful shout-out from Amanda:

Fortunately, groups like the Coastal Conservation League and the various land trust organizations are trying to find ways that allow people to financially be able to keep property in agricultural uses, be it farming or forestry, and stop the mass conversion of acreage to developments.

P&C: ‘Making It Grow’ TV show host Amanda McNulty helps South Carolina blossom

The shift to locally grown food is one component, by the way, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

And on the transportation front, former Conservation League staffer Katie Zimmerman, who now heads Charleston Moves, urges local elected officials to step up the pace of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure construction. Says Katie:

Now is the time for leadership—for elected officials, businesses, and constituents to work together and actually get some bike lanes striped, some signalization in place, some sidewalks constructed.

P&C: Zimmerman Editorial: Upgrade local bicycle infrastructure for convenience, safety

Finally, Quintin Washington interviewed me on Friday on the perennial subject of I-526. We also discussed the proposed new transit center in North Charleston and the transportation challenges the Charleston metro region faces – functionally and politically – in the coming years. It’s long, and a bit rambling on my part, but Quintin, as always, gets to the heart of the matter.

Quintin’s Close-Ups: Dana Beach interview

From Paris and New York to Cottageville, from GrowFood to bike lanes, what does this all add up to? I’m going to make what may seem a naively optimistic observation. I think President Trump has started a revolution – and very much for the good. He has been unambiguous, forthright and consistent in his disdain of the principles that, for more than 200 years, America has struggled to maintain as the bedrock of nationhood – reason and logic, objectivity, compassion and generosity. Instead, he has pursued an agenda of “naked selfishness,” of vindictive and petty egotism, and of arrogant, erratic and uninformed self-indulgence. In that respect, President Trump personifies the human attributes and attitudes that our social and political structures were designed to suppress.

So doing, President Trump has stimulated a national debate about what a modern society should aspire to and how it should behave toward its citizens and its neighbors. He has incited an examination of the risks that have always lurked beneath (and, sometimes, at) the surface of our generally harmonious democracy. The result has been the emergence, in a large part of the population, of a collective sense of indignation, but more importantly, of a stronger appreciation of responsibility, by cities and towns, states, neighborhoods and individuals and, I think, of a renewed commitment to the ideals that, at our best, have shaped this country.

That could not have come at a more important time in history. Thank you, President Trump.

Have a wonderful week, and keep the faith!

Dana