Analyze the statement and draft an Action plan as a policy maker to introduce behavioral change for individuals to reduce their footprint with an ultimate goal to lessen the impact of climate change
WEF
lacked buzz without Donald Trump as unease over Brexit and global recession
dominated the summit
The
first big international gathering of the year is the annual meeting of the
World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos.
Politicians, academics, businessmen and a smattering of billionaires make up
the guest list, while campaigners and activists lobby on the fringes. So what
have we learned from their week in the snow?
1 Davos has lost its mojo
Love
him or hate him, Donald Trump created a buzz at the 2018 annual meeting, but
this year the atmosphere was flat. Ken Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor
and Davos regular, said he could not recall the mood being so muted. Without
Trump, Xi Jinping of China or Vladimir Putin, Davos lacked
a headline act. The format – panels of experts discussing the world’s problems
– looks tired.
2 Unlikely showstoppers
The
stars at this year’s WEF had a distinctly un-Davos feel about them. The
broadcaster Sir David Attenborough (a sprightly 92)
and climate activist Greta Thunberg (a resolute 16) both used the forum’s
spotlight to promote climate activism (and in Sir David’s case his new Netflix
documentary too).
Prince
William and the New Zealand PM, Jacinda Ardern, were a hot ticket and there was
an unseemly scramble to get into their discussion session on mental health. The
Duke of Cambridge revealed he hadn’t been able to get any celebrities to sign
up to help launch the Heads Together campaign fronted by him, his wife and his
brother. He criticised the British stiff-upper-lip approach of the wartime
generation, and said it was partly to blame for the stigma around mental health
problems.
3 Climate change is
unavoidable but have delegates really got the message?
Delegates
who took the trip up Davos’s funicular railway met Arctic scientists warning of
a climate change catastrophe unless urgent action is taken to “bend the curve”
on rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Phasing
out burning coal would be a good start, but environmentalists were disappointed
when Angela Merkel said Germany would need coal for “a certain time” (and more
Russian gas otherwise).
Davos,
meanwhile, was gridlocked with limos all week, suggesting that CEOs need to
walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Or, indeed, just walk.
4 Unease about the global
economy
Davos
has three settings. There are years, such as 2009, when the attendees are
panic-stricken. There are years, such as 2007, when they are insufferably
bullish. And there are years in between, such as this one. There was concern
about the recent weakness of the global economy – but not that much. If a
recession is in the offing, Davos has not realised it yet.
5 Growing concern about
Brexit
Philip
Hammond stood in for Theresa May this year and the chancellor had a series of
meetings with business chiefs and policymakers in an attempt to reassure them
that the government was doing its utmost to avoid a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.
He would have needed a tin ear not to have picked up on the growing business
worries.
His
key message was that the vote to leave had to be respected – but that a no-deal
Brexit would be a betrayal of the hopes for a better future of those who voted
leave.
6 The Davos bobble hat
Even
the global elite like a freebie, and few giveaways are more popular than the
blue Davos bobble hats, sponsored by Zurich Insurance, and available from a
special hole-in-the-wall bobble dispenser outside the conference centre.
So
much more than a mere beanie, they have a discreet logo which can advertise the
wearer’s importance on the school run or a family ski holiday. Hundreds are
handed out every year and by Thursday they had to post a sign saying they’d run
out – but to come back next year.
7 Nobody likes Davos
While
everyone who’s anyone is expected to be at Davos, few seem to really enjoy it,
and the four days can be a slog. Politicians are expected to come back with
some tangible deals, lest they be criticised for simply
quaffing champagne. Many of the corporate elite spend their days in
back-to-back meetings with clients and investors: one executive said he had
attended no fewer than 17 in one day.
But,
as Oscar Wilde might have said: there’s only one thing worse than being invited
to Davos – and that’s not being invited.
8 Populism hits the world
stage
Trump
may have been missing out on the action, but the latest poster-boy for
rightwing populism, Jair Bolsonaro, made his international debut. The new
Brazilian president delivered a six-minute pro-business speech, promising to
balance economic growth with preserving his country’s unique environment. That,
however, prompted alarm among activists worried
about the environmental threat.
9 Hierarchy is everything
The
first thing to learn at Davos is the tiered badge system. It gives the top boss
class – who get white badges with a hologram – an easy way to decide if you’re
worth talking to. Pesky journalists, for the record, are highlighted with
yellow badges.
There’s
a hierarchy of dinners and parties too. Organisers trying to impress invite
celebs and politicians to parties in swanky buildings. JP Morgan had a very
popular bash at the Kirchner Museum while Aberdeen Standard set up a posh
scotch whisky bar. But the best parties are often the ones you don’t know
about.
10 And now the good news…
Carping
aside, there was some good news out of Davos. Seven top businesses backed the
new Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality, for example, while 25 are supporting
a new recycling drive.
Japan’s
prime minister, Shinzō Abe, pledged action on global data governance, and the
UK pushed on antimicrobial resistance. The WEF also brought leaders together to
discuss “key global faultlines” including the western Balkans and Syria. All
areas where progress was welcome.
Since you're here ...
... and it's nearly the end of the year, we have a small
favour to ask. Millions have turned to the Guardian for vital, independent,
quality journalism throughout a turbulent and challenging 2020. Readers in 180
countries, including India, now support us financially. Will you join them?
We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s
grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity.
That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all
readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This
means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take
meaningful action.
In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news
organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or
billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political
influence – this makes us different. When it’s never been more important, our
independence allows us to investigate fearlessly, and challenge those in power.
In this unprecedented year of intersecting crises, we
have done just that, with revealing journalism that had real-world impact: the
inept handling of the Covid-19 crisis, the Black Lives Matter protests, and the
tumultuous US election.
We have enhanced our reputation for urgent, powerful
reporting on the climate emergency, and moved to practice what we preach,
rejecting advertising from fossil fuel companies, divesting from oil and gas
companies and setting a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Your
funding powers our journalism, it protects our independence, and ensures we can
remain open for all. You can support us through these challenging economic
times and enable real-world impact.
Every contribution, however big or small, makes a real
difference for our future.
Globalization 4.0: Shaping a Global Architecture in the Age of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution
Shaping the global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of 2019 will take place in a context of unprecedented uncertainty, fragility and controversy. In a world preoccupied by crisis management at a moment of transformative change we will use the spirit of Davos to build the future in a constructive, collaborative way. “Transformation” best describes the geopolitical, economic and environmental outlook globally. We are shifting from a world order based on common values to a “multiconceptual” world shaped by competing narratives seeking to create a new global architecture. We live in a world with new planetary boundaries for its development. We are entering into a Fourth Industrial Revolution shaped by advanced technologies from the physical, digital and biological worlds that combine to create innovations at a speed and scale unparalleled in human history. Collectively, these transformations are changing how individuals, governments and companies relate to each other and the world at large. In short, we are fast approaching a new phase of global cooperation: Globalization 4.0. But, will the arrival of Globalization 4.0 result in our acknowledging these changes and working together to create new opportunities for humankind? Or will globalization suffer from multiple geopolitical, economic and environmental crises that strain multilateral institutions and hinder efforts to collaborate towards a shared future? Progress in either instance will require a platform that can act as an honest broker among the competing and increasingly conflicting values and ambitions of nations, industries and societies.
As the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, the World Economic Forum will focus its convening power, community engagement, insight generation and platform technology to shape a new framework for global cooperation. The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting will focus on the strategic ramifications of Globalization 4.0 and its future impact on global cooperation and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The programme in Davos will aim to foster systems leadership and global stewardship while recognizing the actuality of a more complex, “multiconceptual” world.
In this regard, the development of the forthcoming Annual Meeting will be based on five working principles:
1. Dialogue is critical and must be multistakeholder-based
2. Globalization must be responsible and responsive to regional and national concerns
3. International coordination must be improved in the absence of multilateral cooperation
4. Addressing the biggest global challenges requires the collaborative efforts of business, government and civil society
5. Global growth must be inclusive and sustainable.
Under the rubric of Globalization 4.0, a series of “Global Dialogues” in Davos will focus on the following interrelated areas: – A global dialogue on the geopolitics and a “multiconceptual” world to understand major ongoing changes in international relations and to enable candid and constructive discussion on how to drive future cooperation along with a global dialogue on peace and reconciliation to catalyse large-scale, multistakeholder support for diplomatic efforts on key fault lines around the world, especially at a time when strategic geopolitical shifts create the danger of vacuums and/or unilateralism and escalation. – A global dialogue on the future of the economy to review principles for economic and social decision-making that need to be redefined to better reflect the structural changes inherent in the Fourth Industrial Revolution along with a global dialogue on financial and monetary systems to jointly shape our monetary and financial systems by not only leveraging new technologies, such as cryptocurrencies and blockchain, but also making the systems more resilient for achieving sustainable growth and long-term societal well-being. – A global dialogue on industry systems that anticipates how the Fourth Industrial Revolution provides opportunities to substantially enhance the availability and delivery of services in the areas of health, energy, communication and transport, among others, along with a global dialogue on technology policy to define the principles for new and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and gene editing, to ensure that they are underpinned by the necessary ethical principles and values-based framework. – A global dialogue on cybersecurity to ensure that digital innovation and the technological backbone of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are both secure and trusted along with a global dialogue on risk resilience to promote systems thinking to radically improve our collective and integrated management of the key environmental systems (climate, ocean and biosphere) upon which our societies and economies depend. – A global dialogue on human capital to revisit the notion of work substantially changing and to rethink its future and the relevance of human capital along with a global dialogue on a new societal narrative to shape a new narrative for societies, moving from a consumption and materialistic fixation to a more idealistic, humanistic focus. – A global dialogue on institutional reform to rethink the global institutional frameworks that emerged in the 20th century and adapt them to ensure they are relevant for the new political, economic and social context for the remainder of the 21st century along with a global dialogue on economic cooperation to create a new framework of rules and institutions integrating all aspects of global economic cooperation, including intellectual property, movement of people, competition policies, data protection, exchange rates, fiscal policies, state-owned enterprises and national security.
Recommendations and proposals from the “Global Dialogues” will be
integrated into the Forum’s 14 System Initiatives, which curate, align and
advance the efforts of the most globally relevant and knowledgeable individuals
and institutions that are shaping the future.
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Consumption
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and Society
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Economic Progress
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Education, Gender and Work
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Energy
– System Initiative on Shaping the Environment and Natural Resource Security
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Food Systems
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of International Trade and Investment
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Long-term Investing, Infrastructure and Development
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Information and Entertainment
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Mobility
– System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Manufacturing and Production
Participation in the Annual Meeting is by invitation for the following
Forum communities:
– Chief executive officers and chairs of our 1,000 Partner and Member companies actively engaged in the International Business Council, Community of Chairpersons, Industry Governors, Regional Business Councils and System Initiative Stewardship Boards – More than 250 political leaders from the G20 and other countries and heads of international organizations engaged in high-level dialogues facilitated by the Informal Gathering of World Economic Leaders (IGWEL)
– Members of the Forum’s Global Future Councils, Expert Network and Global University Leaders Forum collaborating with spiritual and cultural leaders and representatives from major civil society, labour and media organizations – Technology Pioneers, the Global Shapers Community, the Forum of Young Global Leaders and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, communities representing a new generation of innovators and entrepreneurs The Annual Meeting remains the foremost gathering of top leaders from politics, business, civil society and academia to shape global, industry and regional agendas in the context of Globalization 4.0 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the true “Davos Spirit”, the aim is to advance these agendas with bold ideas and exciting opportunities to consider in the year ahead.
Analyze the statement and draft an Action plan as a policy maker
to introduce behavioral change for individuals to reduce their footprint with
an ultimate goal to lessen the impact of climate change:--
we reduce our impact
on climate change:
Reduce water waste.
Saving water reduces carbon pollution, too. That's because it takes a lot of
energy to pump, heat, and treat your water. So take shorter
showers, turn off the tap while brushing your teeth,
and switch to WaterSense-labeled fixtures and appliances.
How we can combat climate change
The world has until
2030 to drastically cut our emissions. Where do we begin? Last year’s report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sounded the alarm: The world has
until 2030 to implement “rapid and far-reaching” changes to our energy,
infrastructure and industrial systems to avoid 2 degrees Celsius of
warming, which could be catastrophic.
But the scale of the challenge can appear so overwhelming that it’s hard to
know where to start. The Post asked activists, politicians and researchers for
climate policy ideas that offer hope. Radical change from one state, or even
the whole United States, won’t address climate change on its own, but taking
these actions could help start the planet down a path toward a better future.
11 policy ideas
to protect the planet
- Set local
emissions goals
- Be
smart about your air conditioner
- Encourage
electric vehicles
- Be smart
about nuclear power
- Make
it easier to live without cars
- Prevent
wasted food — the right way
- Incentivize
carbon farming
- Curb the
effects of meat and dairy
- Adopt a
carbon tax
- Open electric
markets to competition
- Pass a
Green New Deal
Set local emissions goals
By Peter Buckland and Brandi Robinson
In June 2017, the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors passed a resolution recognizing the risk
and threats of failing to draw down carbon emissions. As a local government in
Pennsylvania, the third-largest greenhouse-gas emitter in
the United States despite having a right to a clean environment
guaranteed in its state constitution, we knew we had to
act. Our resolution calls for carbon neutrality as soon as feasible but no
later than 2050. Peter Buckland is the chair of the Ferguson Township
Board of Supervisors. Brandi Robinson is the chair of the Ferguson
Township Climate Action Committee. Passing the resolution provided the opportunity
and, arguably, the imperative to integrate emissions impacts into all township
decision-making. By setting such a goal at the local level, governments can
figure out what solutions fit their community’s needs and work within their
state’s legislative landscape. For Ferguson Township, this has meant 100
percent wind power, designing a LEED Gold public works building, working on
zoning changes to incentivize green building, low-impact stormwater
infrastructure, and working with local school kids, teachers and families to
plant trees.
Ferguson
Township also created a
Climate Action Committee that has conducted a municipal-wide greenhouse-gas
inventory. Inventorying emissions establishes a credible baseline from which we
can measure our progress. But equally important and less easily quantifiable
benefits lie beyond this policy’s tangible and predictable outcomes. Effective
climate action plans require that residents, public officials, businesses and
other stakeholders cultivate trusting working relationships with one another.
The policy directive created the inspiration and framework for change, but all
of us in Ferguson Township must embrace it and take action to achieve results. Be smart about your air conditioner By Durwood Zaelke Air conditioners have a high impact on the
climate, both in the energy and refrigerants they use — super greenhouse gases
called hydrofluorocarbons. HFCs are short-lived pollutants, but they have an
impact on global warming that’s hundreds to thousands of times more potent than that of
carbon dioxide by mass. Yet as the world gets hotter, air-conditioner demand is
growing, with experts projecting we’ll have 4.5 billion units by 2050, up from about 1.2 billion today.
Some states, including California, are taking action to address this problem
now. Durwood Zaelke is the founder and president of the Institute for
Governance & Sustainable Development. Globally, a phasedown of HFC
refrigerants could avoid up to 0.5 degree Celsius of warming by 2100; the
Montreal Protocol now requires countries to reduce the use of
these chemicals starting in January. Parallel efforts to improve the efficiency
of air conditioners can double this climate benefit, with the potential to
avoid up to a full degree Celsius by the end of the century. In addition to
buying only super-efficient air conditioners — which over the lifetime of the
unit will save you money and reduce climate impacts and air pollutants — you
can encourage your state legislators to follow the model of California, which
requires a 40 percent reduction in HFCs by 2030.
Its latest efforts further prohibit
refrigerants with high global warming potential in new air conditioners and
commits to supporting other states to adopt similar prohibitions. New York, Maryland and Connecticut have
followed suit, and other states can, too. You can also encourage your
legislators to require the highest energy efficiency standards for air
conditioners, and to use their buying power to insist on only the most
efficient equipment.
Encourage electric vehicles
By Constantine
Samaras
Americans are driving more
miles in the same old cars, and because we use fuels made from
oil to power most of our transportation system, moving people and
goods around is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions.
Because we use little oil to make electricity, and the power grid
is getting cleaner as
natural gas and renewables replace coal, electrifying as much of the
transportation sector as possible could speed up an energy transition. Constantine
Samaras is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering
and a fellow at the Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie
Mellon University. There is a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 to get
people to buy electric cars, but it is starting to phase out for some types of cars. Combined
with incentives in some states, these tax credits have been helpful, but
electric vehicles still make up only a few percent of
all vehicle sales. Getting more electric vehicles on the road requires expanded
federal tax credits and making them available for buyers when they’re at the
car dealership, rather than in their tax returns the following year. This would
help more low- and middle-income car buyers make the jump to electric. The
federal government could also once again offer tax credits or direct
infrastructure grants to local governments and firms to build a robust
charging-station network so that these new electric car owners have a place to
plug in.
State and local policymakers can mirror these efforts but can also accelerate
transportation electrification in other ways. There are more than 8 million fleet vehicles in the United States;
governments could electrify a majority of their vehicles and induce businesses
to follow their lead. State and local governments could also experiment with
electric-only delivery zones and use other innovative incentives to encourage
electrification of freight, shared hailed vehicles and, eventually, automated
vehicles. Creating a transportation
system where we can move around without oil is going to be challenging. But
we’ll get cars that are more fun to drive, cleaner air and a climate we can
recognize.Be smart about nuclear power (By Steve Clemmer) My
organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, recently released an analysis offering a sensible way for
the United States to help combat climate change: Keep safely operating nuclear
plants running until they can be replaced by other low-carbon technologies. Steve
Clemmer is the director of energy research and analysis for the Union of
Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. Our report found that more
than a third of the nation’s 60 plants operating at the end of 2017 — 22 percent
of U.S. nuclear power capacity — are either unprofitable or slated to close
within the next 10 years. Unless federal and state governments adopt new
policies, these and other economically marginal plants will likely be replaced
primarily by natural gas. If that happens, the U.S. electric power sector’s
carbon emissions could increase as much as 6 percent by 2035. To help preserve
existing nuclear power — and boost investments in renewables and energy
efficiency — the federal government and states should establish a carbon price
or a low-carbon electricity standard. These policies would help level the
playing field for low-carbon technologies by incorporating the cost of
climate-change-related damage into the price of fossil fuels. Absent those
measures, some states are providing subsidies to prevent uneconomical plants
from closing abruptly. States considering that approach should limit their
subsidies and adjust them over time to protect consumers, and provide them only
to plants that meet or exceed the most stringent federal safety standards.
Subsidies also should go hand in hand with increased investments in renewables
and energy efficiency as part of a broader strategy to reduce carbon
emissions.Finally, the 60-year operating licenses for most reactors in the
United States are scheduled to expire between 2030 and 2050. Nuclear plant
owners should be required to develop worker and community transition plans to
prepare for their facilities’ eventual retirement and decommissioning.
Make it easier to live without cars
By Emiko Atherton
We have a suite of simple tools that can
help us dramatically curb emissions from transportation: building and
redesigning our streets to make it safer and more convenient for people to walk
and bike more and drive less — what we call Complete Streets policies. In fact, there’s no
way we’ll be able to sufficiently reduce our emissions without doing this. As
long as we design our streets only for cars, we are designing a high-carbon
future.
Emiko Atherton is the director of the
National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart Growth America.
Walking or biking could substitute for 41 percent of short
car trips, saving nearly 5 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from car travel.
So why don’t we walk and bike more? We certainly want to. A recent survey by the National Association
of Realtors found that a majority of Americans would prefer to live in walkable
communities with transit service. But we drive because our streets have been
designed for our vehicles, not us. And walking is not just unpleasant on
auto-oriented roads; it’s often deadly. While traffic fatalities overall have
been decreasing, pedestrian fatalities are increasing, up to nearly 6,000 people in 2017.
Complete
Streets policies are commitments by government to design our streets to make
cycling, walking, riding transit and driving safe, comfortable, reliable and
affordable. That includes better lighting and crosswalks for pedestrians,
protected bike lanes for bicyclists, and good shelters and signage for people
waiting for the bus.
According to the 2017
National Household Travel Survey, almost 50
percent of all car trips taken were three miles or less; more
than 20 percent were a mile or less. The potential climate benefits of shifting
even a portion of those trips to lower-carbon modes are undeniable. Complete
Streets policies are an important part of a climate change strategy. Residents
can urge their city councils or state legislatures to pass Complete Streets legislation,
improving safety and making more zero-emissions trips easier for everyone to
take.
Prevent wasted
food — the right way (By Roni Neff) When Project Drawdown ranked the 80 most
impactful climate change solutions, No. 3 was addressing waste of food. In the
United States, we waste up to 40 percent of our food supply —
enough nutritional value to feed millions. The
United Nations estimates that if wasted food was a country, its
greenhouse-gas emissions would rank third globally. That’s in part because of
the food system’s outsize climate impact: It accounts for an estimated 19 percent to 29 percent of
global anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions.
Roni Neff is an
assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and
a program director at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.
The United States and many states and localities have signed onto a global target of halving wasted food by 2030. So-called
food waste bans, policies restricting food from going to landfills, can help
get there. Five states (California, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont) and multiple municipalities and
international locations have such bans or mandatory food recycling. Others
incentivize reduced landfilling with “pay as you throw” approaches.
Related
The climate change evidence piles up. So
does the denial. These policies can lead to
increased food recycling (composting or anaerobic digestion) and related
infrastructure. But while preferable to leaving food to release methane in
landfills, recycling can’t make up for the emissions that went into the food’s
production, processing, distribution, heating and cooling. Recycling can even
be perceived as a justification for
discarding good food. Among food waste mitigation strategies, by far, the greater climate benefit per ton comes from
avoiding unnecessary food production. Accordingly, waste-ban policies should be
considered incomplete unless they promote waste prevention and donation as the
preferred approaches. California, for instance, has passed a bill requiring that, by 2025, at least 20
percent of edible food that would otherwise be disposed instead be recovered to
eat. Halving waste of food is an audacious target, but it’s achievable. Food
waste bans can dramatically ramp up the prevention, recovery and recycling of
food. Most ban policies are fairly new, and more research is needed, but thus
far it appears that, approached right, they can be a
win-win-win-win-win for waste mitigation, jobs, economic activity, food insecurity and, of course, the
climate.
Incentivize carbon farming (By Didi
Barrett)
The agricultural industry
is a leading source of greenhouse-gas emissions globally. Practices that
improve soil health will play a critical role in our efforts to combat climate
change by reducing the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and
states can help by passing legislation that incentivizes carbon farming.
Didi
Barrett is a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly.
Carbon farming refers to climate-smart agricultural
practices that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by sequestering, or storing,
carbon in the soil instead of promoting its release into the atmosphere as
carbon dioxide. Carbon farming improves soil health and productivity, thereby
maximizing crop yields. It also increases soil resilience and reduces the need
for pesticides.
Carbon-farming
strategies include planting cover crops that increase water retention and soil
nutrients and keep weeds down; using no-till approaches that limit aeration of
surface soils and reduce erosion; and planting diverse perennial forages with
deeper root systems for grazing animals. Longer root systems increase organic
matter (carbon-based molecules) in the soil. These practices could have a huge
impact on our emissions: Project Drawdown estimates that widespread
adoption of these types of practices could reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by
23.2 gigatons by 2050.
In New York, I introduced the Carbon
Farming Act, a first-of-its-kind bill that would give farmers a financial
incentive for implementing climate-smart practices. This legislation creates a
tax credit for farmers to continue these practices and to encourage others to
begin them, because policies that reward — rather than punish through carbon
penalties, for example — will ultimately be more effective and equitable.
Farmers, who are responsible for producing the fresh food
we put on our tables and depend on weather for their livelihoods, could make
significant contributions to helping us reach emission reduction goals.
Incentivizing carbon-farming practices will ensure that agriculture’s future is
both economically and environmentally sustainable.
Curb the effects of meat and dairy (By Juliette
Majot)
We must begin regulating the factory-farm model of
livestock production to step up the fight on climate change. A 2018 report from
the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy and GRAIN analyzed the
greenhouse-gas emissions of the world’s 35 biggest meat and dairy conglomerates
and found that the top 20 emitted more greenhouse gases in 2016 than several
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries did.
Juliette Majot is executive director of
the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy.
The
mass production of ruminant animals produces untenable amounts of climate-warming
methane. The conversion of large swaths of land into feed grain monocultures to
raise ever-growing numbers of animals emits the potent greenhouse gas nitrous
oxide, as synthetic fertilizers leach into soils and water. Additionally, this
land-use change releases precious carbon stocks from soils into the atmosphere.
Now is the
time to call the meat and dairy conglomerates to account. Let’s start by
curbing both over-production and emissions by securing a moratorium on new
factory farms, a.k.a. CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).
Predominantly located in low-income communities and, often, communities of
color, these major polluters of air and water are already facing tenacious
public opposition. From North Carolina, to Wisconsin and Iowa, to California and Oregon, communities are calling on their local
and state governments to step up and better regulate these polluters.
Then, let’s stop funneling
taxpayer money to these big corporations through various farm-bill programs,
such as the guaranteed loan program that often backs the construction
and expansion of CAFOs. Instead, we should start investing in a just transition
to agricultural systems that lift up rural communities by supporting farmers
practicing sustainable grazing practices, expanding the infrastructure for the
growing grass-fed beef and dairy markets, and enforcing fair market and fair
contract rules for the livestock industry. That will improve the quality of our
food, air, soil, water and climate.
Adopt a carbon tax ( By Carlos
Curbelo)
Warming temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme
weather caused by greenhouse emissions have the potential to adversely affect
the health of every American and the strength of our economy, consequently
imposing substantial costs on us and future generations.
Carlos Curbelo, a
Republican, is an outgoing representative for Florida’s 26th Congressional
District in the House of Representatives.
We must recognize these costs to our nation and world. We
have a responsibility to promote policies that reduce greenhouse gases while
maintaining economic growth and supporting innovation. We will need new ways to
produce goods, transport ourselves and power our economy across various
sectors.
The best way to inspire such a wide-ranging, meaningful
change, at the pace that we need it, is putting a price on carbon. When
carefully crafted, a carbon price can strengthen our economy, reduce emissions
and encourage innovation.
That was my goal in
drafting the Market Choice Act, a bill that would repeal the
federal gas and aviation fuel taxes and swap them for a tax on carbon emissions
at the source. Revenue raised would then be used to robustly fund our nation’s
infrastructure, help coastal communities adapt to the immediate effects of
climate change and give low-income Americans and displaced workers assistance
in the transition. Analysis from Columbia University indicates
this legislation would exceed the emissions goals of the Paris agreement and
President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The plan would also maintain
American manufacturing competitiveness and provide regulatory certainty to
allow for long-term investments in cleaner energy projects, so long as
emissions goals are being met.
Economic prosperity and being good stewards of our
environment are not mutually exclusive. By reducing our emissions, we ensure
the protection of our economy, infrastructure and the general welfare of all
Americans.
Open electric markets
to competition (By Josiah Neeley)
Throughout much of the
country, consumers have no choice when it comes to buying electricity. Local
utilities are given monopoly privileges with oversight from state regulatory
bodies. This system wasn’t set up to keep the nation’s electricity system
dirty, but it often functions that way. Over the past decade, market-driven
declines in the price of renewable energy and natural gas have led to the
closure of many coal power plants. But because electric rates in monopoly systems
are set based on what’s needed for utilities to recover their costs, the
utility companies have less incentive to retire uneconomical plants.
Josiah Neeley is a senior fellow with the
R Street Institute.
Introducing competition to
the electric market changes that. Instead of a centrally planned organization
deciding which types of power to use, electricity generators must compete with
each other to provide reliable power at the lowest cost. Generators thus have
strong incentives to switch to cleaner fuels when they become cheaper. It’s no
mere coincidence that the state with the most wind generation — Texas — also has
the most free electric market in the nation.
Competition can even improve the performance of fossil-fuel plants. Between
1991 and 2005, states with electrical competition saw a 6 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions from
existing coal plants, due to improved fuel efficiency.
Electric competition has also made
providers more responsive to the growing consumer demand for clean energy. The
number of “green choice” customers in states with retail competition increased
by 142 percent from
2010 to 2012. Introducing more competition into the electric system
would help speed the transition to cleaner energy. And even where states might
not be ready to embrace full restructuring, smaller steps can still help. Some states have considered creating an
exemption to the typical monopoly restrictions for customers who want to buy
100 percent renewable electricity on the open market. Reducing emissions from
the power sector is a critical part of the response to climate change, and
electric competition needs to be a part of that conversation.
Pass a Green New Deal (By Varshini
Prakash)
We don’t have a moment to
waste. To address the full scope of the climate crisis, we need massive
government action to overhaul our economy away from fossil fuels to clean
energy. We need a Green New Deal — a broad and ambitious package of policies
and investments that would put millions of Americans to work transforming
our economy away from fossil fuels by 2030, restoring the American landscape
and ensuring that everyone has clean air and water, all in ways that prioritize
justice and equity and grow the economy.
Varshini Prakash is the founder and
spokeswoman of the Sunrise Movement.
Specifically,
we could transition 100 percent of our electricity generation to renewable
sources; build a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid; upgrade every residential and
industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;
and transition the manufacturing, agriculture and transportation industries
away from coal, oil and gas. A Green New Deal would also invest in projects to
capture climate-damaging gases already in the atmosphere and make the United
States an undisputed global leader in green technology, ensuring that the
advances we make can be shared with the global community.
While the Green New Deal
would require a scale of government action not seen since the Great Depression
and World War II, this type of job-creating policy is extremely popular and could ensure
economic security to millions of Americans for the first time in decades,
especially people of color and poor or middle-class Americans who have been
left out of the economic gains of the past four decades. We can solve the
biggest challenge humanity has ever faced and protect our air, water and land
for future generations.
Young people have a right to good jobs and a livable
future. The Green New Deal is a winning plan for both.
Reference:
·
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_AM19_Meeting_Overview.pdf
·
https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/changing-behavior-help-meet-long-term-climate-targets
·
Sources: Classifications
adapted from Osbaldiston and Schott (2012), with examples in better-studied
domains taken from Wynes et al. (2018).