Climate 411

In Win for Environment, Court Recognizes Social Cost of Carbon

By Susanne Brooks / Published: September 1, 2016

This post was co-authored with Martha Roberts. It originally appeared on EDF’s Market Forces)

If someone was tallying up all the benefits of energy efficiency programs, you’d want them to include reducing climate pollution, right? That’s just common sense.

Thankfully, that’s what our government does when it designs energy efficiency programs—as well as other policies that impact greenhouse gas emissions. And just this month, this approach got an important seal of approval: For the first time, a federal court upheld using the social cost of carbon to inform vital protections against the harmful impacts of climate change.

So what is the social cost of carbon and why does it matter? It’s a crucial part of the development of climate safeguards and essential to our understanding of the full costs of climate pollution. We know that climate change is a clear and present danger now and for future generations—one that will result in enormous costs to our economy, human health and the environment. And yet, these “social” costs are not accounted for in our markets, and therefore in decision making. It is a classic Economics 101 market failure. Every ton of carbon dioxide pollution that is emitted when we burn fossil fuels to light our homes or drive our cars has a cost associated with it, a hidden one that is additional to what we pay on our utility bills or at the gas pump. These costs affect us all – and future generations – and are a result of the negative impacts of climate change. If we don’t recognize these hidden costs—we aren’t properly protecting ourselves against the dangers of climate pollution.

The social cost of carbon (or SCC) is an estimate of the total economic harm associated with emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere. To reach the current estimate, several federal agencies came together to determine the range and central price point – roughly $40 per ton – through a transparent and rigorous interagency process that was based on the latest peer-reviewed science and economics available, and which allowed for repeated public comments.

It’s critical that we protect against the damages and costs caused by climate pollution. So it’s a no-brainer that when considering the costs and benefits of climate safeguards, we must take into account all benefits and costs – and that means including the social cost of carbon.

In their court opinion, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed wholeheartedly. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein noted that their decision “upholds a foundation” of “countless” climate protections. In particular, their opinion made two important findings:

  • First, the court affirmed that the DOE was correct to include a value for the social cost of carbon in its analysis. The judges concluded that “[w]e have no doubt” that Congress intended for DOE to have authority to consider the social cost of carbon. Importantly, this conclusion reinforces the appropriateness of including the SCC in future carbon-related rule-makings.
  • Second, the court upheld key choices about how the SCC estimate was calculated. The court agreed that DOE properly considered all impacts of climate change, even those years from now, or outside our borders. These choices, the court concluded, were reasonable and appropriate given the nature of the climate crisis we face.

DOE itself acknowledged “limitations in the SCC estimates.” We couldn’t agree more. As new and better information about the impacts of climate change becomes available and as our ability to translate this science into economic impacts improves, regulators must update the current social cost of carbon estimate. There is still much we do not know about the full magnitude of climate impacts and much that cannot be quantified (as is true of all economic impact analysis) – which means that SCC estimates are likely far lower than the true impact of climate change. But as the Seventh Circuit recognized, their inclusion is a vital step in the right direction for sensible policy-making.

This decision already has positive implications more broadly—in particular, for the Clean Power Plan, our nation’s historic program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Just last week, EPA submitted a letter in the Clean Power Plan litigation noting that the Seventh Circuit’s decision further demonstrates the error of challenges to the treatment of costs and benefits in the Clean Power Plan rulemaking. It’s just another affirmation of the rock-solid legal and technical foundation for the Clean Power Plan.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Policy / Comments are closed

Five things you need to know before the Clean Power Plan oral argument

By Martha Roberts / Published: August 18, 2016

alternative-21581_640The Clean Power Plan oral argument is coming up soon. On September 27, attorneys will present their arguments in front of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

EPA and the many supporters of the Clean Power Plan have already filed their written arguments – and so has the coalition of coal companies and their allies that are challenging the rule. (You can read all their submissions here.) And just yesterday, the D.C. Circuit released the final order on the argument’s format and duration.

The Clean Power Plan is America’s first-ever nationwide program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. It sets eminently achievable carbon emission targets that phase in gradually, in line with current power sector trends, while giving states and power companies tremendous flexibility to determine how best to meet these goals.

As we approach September 27, here are five key facts to keep in mind:

  1. The Clean Power Plan has supporters across the country.

Power companies and state and local officials in forty-one states are supporting the Clean Power Plan in court – either through their state attorney general, a local power company, or a municipality. And there are a lot more supporters as well.

The final submitted briefs reflect a wide array of important perspectives in our society. Supporters of the Clean Power Plan in court include:

  • Leading businesses. Power companies that produce about 10 percent of our nation’s electricity as well as prominent, iconic businesses including Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Google, IKEA, Mars, and Microsoft
  • States and municipalities. 18 states and 60 cities, including major cities in states that are litigating against these protections – like Houston, Grand Rapids, and Miami
  • Consumers Union and other organizations addressing the economic benefits for consumers and low income ratepayers from expansive, low cost clean energy solutions
  • 41 faith communities including the National Council of Churches and the Catholic Climate Covenant
  • Numerous renewable energy companies that are members of the Advanced Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association, which together represent more than 3,000 companies in the advanced energy sector, a $200 billion industry in the United States
  • 25 business associations including American Sustainable Business Council, U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., as well as state associations from West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, among others
  • Current and former members of Congress, including 36 sitting Senators and 157 sitting members of the House
  • Leading public health associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics
  • National security experts including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
  1. The legal and technical foundation of the Clean Power Plan is rock solid.

The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007. In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court specifically held that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan – “speaks directly” to the regulation of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

EPA exhaustively analyzed the Clean Power Plan to ensure that it was based on the best available technical information and would not compromise the affordability or reliability of our electricity supply. EPA also reviewed millions of comments, received on every aspect of the proposed version.

A range of renowned experts have affirmed the robust legal and technical bases for the Clean Power Plan in amicus brief submissions to the D.C. Circuit, including:

  • The Institute for Policy Integrity — represented by New York University Law Dean Emeritus Richard Revesz
  • Former EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly, who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush — represented by Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus
  • Leon Billings and Tom Jorling — the principal drafters of the 1970 Clean Air Act
  • Former state energy and environmental officials — including Larry Soward, Commissioner at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality under Texas Governor Rick Perry
  • Premier electric grid experts, who affirmed that EPA’s approach is fully in line with on-going power sector trends
  • Top climate scientists, who articulated the latest research on observed and projected impacts from our changing climate
  1. The tremendous pace of clean energy development further reinforces the Clean Power Plan’s reasonableness.

The cost of renewable energy is falling at an extraordinary rate, spurring dramatic expansion in its use. The cost of new wind power has dropped 60 percent — and the cost of new solar by 80 percent — since just 2009.

Renewable energy is anticipated to make up approximately 63 percent of new capacity additions in 2016. In fact, the amount of new renewable energy capacity developed in the first three months of 2016 exceeded new natural gas by a factor of more than seventy to one. Almost 100 gigawatts of additional new renewable energy resources are now projected in the United States by 2020, and annual investment in energy efficiency has quadrupled in the last decade.

America’s powerful clean energy trends further buttress the feasibility of the Clean Power Plan’s targets. But you don’t have to take our word for it — because power companies have said so themselves.

In their Clean Power Plan filing, major power producers emphasized their strong support for the Clean Power Plan, highlighting that it “harnesses existing trends within the electricity sector” and was set “with ample margin and attention to what is practically attainable.”

As the companies noted, both they and the power sector in general have “have successfully reduced emissions within their generation portfolios without compromising reliability and will continue to do so” under the Clean Power Plan.

Dominion Resources, an owner of several large coal-fired power plants in the Mid-Atlantic, affirmed the feasibility of compliance in a lengthy amicus brief submitted in support of the Clean Power Plan.

  1. States and power companies are charging ahead.

On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Clean Power Plan in an unprecedented order. Nonetheless, states and power companies are voluntarily moving ahead, in recognition of the tremendous value in following the Clean Power Plan’s flexible, sensible approach to achieving emissions reductions.

More than half of states are continuing to assess planning options under the Clean Power Plan. 14 states across the country have explicitly requested that EPA continue providing information and guidance to help them make informed decisions about potential Clean Power Plan obligations as they continue moving forward. California developed its proposed Clean Power Plan state plan in a year and released it for public comment earlier this month. State officials across the country have voiced support for sensible continued planning — as one Wyoming state legislator put it, “Wyoming should be prepared.” (See a full compilation of state statements on the Clean Power Plan here.)

Power companies across the country have expressed similar sentiments. A representative from Mid-American Energy highlighted that they “wish” the stay hadn’t happened, because of the resulting uncertainty. American Electric Power, a major producer of coal-fired electricity, said that the Supreme Court stay “doesn’t change our focus on the diversification of our generation fleet,” and those diversification plans include more gas and renewables. Power companies are already investing in clean energy in response to the market and their customers — for these companies, any delay in planning creates needless risk and uncertainty.

  1. This record-breaking summer highlights just how urgently we need sensible climate protections.

It’s challenging to encapsulate all the extreme weather we’ve witnessed in 2016. Just in the U.S., we’ve experienced a series of dangerous heat waves, deadly floods, and extreme storms. This week’s flooding in Louisiana is just the latest heart-rending example — with lives tragically lost and upended across the state. Yesterday, NASA announced that July 2016 was the warmest month ever in 136 years of modern record-keeping. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2016 is firmly on track to be the warmest year yet. The Weather Channel noted all of these wild weather events from the first six months of 2016 together here, in a website on 2016’s “Weirdest Weather.” All these events are fully in line with the hotter, more extreme weather that’s predicted under a changing climate.

Meanwhile, new research only underscores the human health costs of climate change. Mitigating the human health impacts of climate change will add to the Clean Power Plan’s substantial health benefits from reducing soot and smog pollutants. EPA estimates that once the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented, these reductions will — every year — avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays.

These climate risks and essential health benefits highlight the importance of having a mandatory framework to ensure emissions reductions. Clean energy trends are already charging ahead, but investors need the certainty that the Clean Power Plan provides — and all Americans’ health and well-being are depending on it.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Energy, EPA litgation, Green Jobs, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Jobs, Policy / Comments are closed

New Clean Trucks program: Business, Consumers and the Planet all Win

By Jason Mathers / Published: August 16, 2016

(This post originally appeared on EDF+Business)

Across America, companies have reason today to celebrate an important step to drive cost and emissions out of their supply chain. The U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation unveiled new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks. Once fully implemented, the new standards will cut over a billion tons of climate pollution and save hundreds of millions of dollars by 2035.

Every business in America stands to benefit.

Why? Because every business in America relies, in some form, on trucking services. Product manufacturers need trucks to get goods to market. Service and knowledge companies depend on trucks to deliver equipment and supplies. Retailers utilize trucks in distribution.

One of Walmart's aerodynamic trucks

One of Walmart’s aerodynamic trucks

Retailers and consumer brands are among the top winners of strong fuel efficiency standards, as these companies account for a lot of freight movement. Companies that have undertaken detailed carbon footprint analysis often find, as Ben & Jerry’s did, that freight transportation can account for upwards of 17 percent of their total impact.

The new fuel standard means continued progress in tackling this significant source of emissions. This progress will reveal itself in lower carbon footprints for every product brought to market. It will be apparent through lower freight and fuel surcharge fees – saving large consumer brands millions annually.

The standards will be increased in 2024 and 2027, resulting in final standards that will require new tractor-trailer units to emit 25 percent less climate pollution in 2027 than in 2017. Long-haul truck drivers will see the new efficiency technology pay back in under two years.

The new standards will drive market uptake of a number of proven fuel saving technologies. Through the Super Truck program of the U.S. Department of Energy, for example, a Daimler team developed a 12.2 MPG trucks and a Cummins and Peterbilt team developed a 10.7 MPG truck. As a group of leading technology innovators noted early this year, “clear, stringent, long-term fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards” are critical to scaling emerging solutions “by creating certainty that high-quality, effective innovations will be rewarded in the marketplace.”

With the certainty of long-term standards, manufacturers will make the needed investments to introduce new engine platforms, better integrate powertrains, and take advantage of other cost-effective choices. In fact, this is just what has happened during an earlier phase of the clean truck program.

PepsiCo, Walmart, General Mills and a number of other leading companies played a critical role in securing the robust, final standards. They were drawn to advocate for strong standards because of the clean truck program’s combination of significant environmental and cost savings, and its ability to bring forward market-ready solutions.

It’s telling that these companies, which are leaders in adopting voluntary green freight best practices, were motivated to advocate for federal greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards too. They recognize that freight movement, which accounts for around 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases, has a critical role to play in cutting our emissions.

Making heavy trucks more fuel efficient is the single most important step to reducing freight emissions. The program announced will be crucial to build a low-carbon future that enables the free flow of freight. That is an outcome every business should celebrate.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed

Coming Soon – Cleaner Trucks, Less Pollution, and Fuel Cost Savings

By Jason Mathers / Published: August 10, 2016

Traffic Light TrucksNew and improved Clean Truck standards are coming soon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are expected to imminently finalize new greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium-and heavy-duty trucks and buses. The standards will apply to the freight trucks that transport the products we buy every day, as well as to buses and school buses, tractor-trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and garbage trucks. (They are separate from standards for cars and passenger trucks.)

EDF, together with a broad coalition of stakeholders, has consistently called for a protective cost-effective program that will curb climate pollution and reduce our nation’s oil consumption while also driving innovative technologies that will stimulate economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs.

Heavy-duty trucks consume almost 120 million gallons of fuel every day and emit more than 400 million metric tons of climate pollution annually. (These estimates do not include upstream emissions.) Freight movement is also one of the most briskly growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in the United States.

The upcoming second phase of Clean Truck standards will build on the first ever heavy-duty fuel economy and GHG program, which was finalized in 2011 with broad support from truck manufacturers, national security and veterans groups, labor, consumer, and health groups, and clean air advocates (including EDF). The success of the first phase Clean Truck program is already being demonstrated by the demand for more efficient trucks and the wide variety of efficiency technologies already available for consumers to choose from.

The second-phase Clean Truck standards will apply to vehicles manufactured years from now, beginning in model year 2021 and spanning later years.The nearly final standards are an important step forward in delivering climate, health and energy benefits.

EPA estimates the standards, as proposed, would:

  • Reduce carbon pollution by one billion tons and cut fuel use by 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles subject to the standards
  • Save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles
  • Save the average American household $150 a year by 2030
  • Reduce harmful criteria and air toxic emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons annually

Increased Efficiency Provides Savings across the Entire Supply Chain

The average semi truck today burns 20,000 gallons of diesel a year – the same volume of fuel used by 50 new passenger cars. Fuel has been the largest single cost for trucking fleets, accounting for 39 percent of the cost of ownership in 2013. According to a study by EDF and CERES, robust fuel efficiency standards for trucks could lower total per-mile cost of ownership by 22 cents-a-mile by 2040.

Companies across the Supply Chain Support Strong Final Standards

Given the combination of environmental and economic benefits that strong final standards will provide, many leading companies have already shown support. PepsiCo and Walmart – two of the largest trucking fleets in the U.S. – support strong standards. General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, IKEA and many other companies that rely on trucking also support strong standards. Innovative manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and freight shippers have also called for strong standards.

Consumers Demand More Efficient Trucks

Some of the savings from the Clean Trucks standards will be passed on to consumers. The Consumer Federation of America found that rigorous fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards could save American households $250 annually in the near term and $400 annually by 2035 on goods and services (even more than what EPA estimated). According to a survey by the Consumer Federation of America, a large majority of Americans – 74 percent – favor requiring truck manufacturers to increase the fuel economy of large trucks to reduce their fuel costs, as much of that savings is passed on to consumers.

Cost-Effective Technologies are Proven and Available

There are many technology solutions on the shelf and in production today that can be cost-effectively scaled to make trucks significantly more efficient and cleaner. Truckers and fleets across the nation have already begun adopting many of these fuel saving technologies and strategies.

Here are some examples:

Rigorous fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses will make the American freight industry cleaner and create American jobs while saving American fleets and consumers money.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Jobs, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed

Clean Trucks Turn Five and Bring Far-Reaching Economic and Environmental Benefits

By Jason Mathers / Published: August 9, 2016
One of Walmart's aerodynamic trucks

One of Walmart’s aerodynamic trucks

Five years ago today, President Obama announced final fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty trucks. These new Clean Truck standards are helping to keep Americans safe from climate change and from unhealthy air pollution, reduce our country’s reliance on imported oil, and save money for both truckers and consumers.

On the fifth anniversary of their release, it is unequivocally clear that this program has been an enormous success for manufacturers, truck fleets, freight shippers, and the American people. It is also clear that more is needed and that more is possible.

The first generation Clean Truck standards were created with the broad support of the trucking industry and many other key stakeholders. Among the diverse groups that supported them were the American Trucking Associations, Engine Manufacturers Association and the Truck Manufacturers Association, the United Auto Workers — and of course EDF. With the benefit of five years of hindsight, it’s clear that this support was well deserved.

The Clean Truck standards went into effect in 2014, which was a banner year for new truck sales. These new standards drove a wave of innovation for fuel efficiency. Cummins brought forward an engine that was seven percent more efficient. Volvo improved its engine by three percent compared to just the previous year’s model. Numerous component manufacturers brought forth new fuel saving solutions.

We are now seeing this same pattern repeat itself as manufacturers announce their 2017 product lines. Volvo just introduced an engine capable of improving fuel efficiency by 6.5 percent over its 2013 model in part because of its use of waste-heat recovery. Cummins base 2017 engine is three percent more efficient than its 2016 engine and it offers a model that is 10 more efficient than one made just five years ago.

The progress we made toward fuel efficiency in 2014 and 2017 is the result of a Clean Trucks program that strikes an important balance between protective, long-term standards and the ability of manufacturers to bring new solutions to market. As Martin Daum, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America has noted, these standards “are very good examples of regulations that work well.”

The new trucks built under the 2014-to-2018 program are delivering tens of billions of dollars in savings for truck owners. Individual consumers are benefiting too, as passed-through truck fuel use expenditures cost Americans more than $1100 per household annually.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) are now building on this record of success with a new round of standards. These second-round standards were proposed last summer and are expected to be finalized soon. The proposed second-round standards were a good first step, but significant opportunities remain to strengthen and improve on the proposal. Chief among these is the need for a more robust engine standard.

The 2014-to-2017 program, which has been incredibly successful, required a nine percent engine efficiency improvement over the course of four years. In comparison, the proposed 2021-to-2029 program would require only a four percent improvement over the course of nearly a decade. Failing to strengthen these standards would be an enormous lost opportunity. Leading engine experts have found that fuel savings of fifteen percent beyond the 2017 standards are technically feasible and cost effective over the course of the 2021-to-2029 program.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration released a recent analysis of the emissions impacts of the 2021-to-2029 standards as proposed. It found that the standards would cut direct emissions by 100 million tons in 2040 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Even with these impressive reductions, freight trucks are projected to directly emit nearly 400 million tons of climate pollution in 2040. This doesn’t have to be so.

We are seeing significant investments in potential solutions and technologies that can dramatically reduce future truck emissions.

High-profile examples of this innovation include:

  • Tesla’s intention of bringing forward an electric semi-truck, noting that a prototype truck will be unveiled in 2017
  • Walmart’s introduction of its W.A.V.E. truck
  • The U.S. Department of Energy’s SuperTruck team road-testing trucks capable of getting 10.7 and 12.2 miles per gallon

By building on the foundation of the 2014-to-2017 standards with truly strong 2021-to-2029 standards, EPA and DOT will provided needed wind in the sails to get breakthrough innovations like these to market. The benefits have been, and will be, far reaching — in fuel cost savings for trucker and shippers alike, job creation, pollution reductions, and the technological innovation that is the foundation of a strong, vibrant economy.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Partners for Change, Policy / Read 1 Response

3 Keys for the American Petroleum Institute’s New Climate Task Force

By EDF Blogs / Published: July 21, 2016

AdobeStock_56840116By Ben Ratner, Director, EDF’s Corporate Partnerships Program

The climate change discussion is percolating even in surprising places. The latest sign: the American Petroleum Institute’s recent formation of an internal task force on climate change. Reportedly the new task force’s mandate is to revisit API’s approach to this crucial issue, going into an election year and with ever greater scrutiny on fossil fuels.

It is too soon to know whether the task force will rubber stamp a business-as-usual approach defined by glossing over climate concerns and attacking policy measures, or chart a new path instead.

But if the task force is serious about a fresh look at the issue, here are three keys for the task force to consider as it ponders the future of API on climate.

Face the Facts

The oil and gas industry must be responsive to growing pressures from its investors, corporate customers, and Americans affected by oil and gas operations – from local pollution to climate change.

The historic global climate agreement reached in Paris, supported by nearly 200 countries including powerhouses like the United States and China, was also supported by a wide cross-section of American businesses – including PG&E, which as a natural gas distribution company and power generator is a user of API members’ products and a face to climate-conscious consumers.

Last April, over 400 investors representing more than $24 trillion in assets under management urged stronger leadership and more ambitious policies to lessen risk to investment and retirement savings of millions of Americans. Since then, the 2016 investor shareholder resolution season yielded a record breaking number of resolutions – 94 – addressing climate change, many levied as challenges to large oil companies.

And American public concern on global warming is reaching an eight year high, with nearly two-thirds of adults saying they worry about global warming a “great deal” or “a fair amount”, according to Gallup.

Facing all the facts, not cherry-picking them, can ground the task force’s work in today’s dynamic environment and enable an effective response in a changing world.

Solve Methane

While understanding and concern on the methane challenge has snowballed, API’s response has severely lagged.

But it doesn’t have to.

The methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas industry account for the climate damage over a 20-year timeframe equivalent to roughly 240 coal fired power plants. And yet, when the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules earlier this year requiring operators to implement basic safeguards to detect and prevent emissions, API’s public response was to decry new environmental rules as “unreasonable and burdensome”.

Months prior, API’s combative regulatory filing questioned the authority of EPA even to regulate methane emissions, resisted twice-a-year inspections for accidental leaks and urged inspection exemptions that ignore insights on leak unpredictability.

The next round of methane rules is around the corner, and better late than never for API to embrace the United States’ goal of a 45% reduction in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and to support effective national methane rules grounded in science and economics. Supporting a level playing field to address the invisible but undeniable methane problem would increase investor confidence and keep more product in the pipelines working for the economy, not against the climate. And it just might help build public trust in an industry that according to Edelman lags only the pharmaceutical and financial services industries in that category.

Truth be told, new regulations and compliance are not cost-free, but neither are exploration and drilling. Investing in effective rules will provide climate and environmental safeguards – a needed advancement responsive to legitimate pressure that is only rising.

Support Carbon Pricing

Implementing a market based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is widely thought to be the ultimate key to achieving U.S. climate goals including cutting emissions 80% by 2050. Geographies from northeastern states and California to South Africa and the EU have implemented various forms of carbon pricing. A number of mostly European API members have publicly supported pricing carbon, for example BP recognizing “that carbon pricing by governments is the most comprehensive and economically efficient policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

And yet, some prominent API members have to date withheld support for carbon pricing, or provided lukewarm quasi-endorsements but not lobbying muscle.

The oil and gas industry has survived through evolving, and it’s time to evolve on carbon pricing. An economically rational policy can provide the investment clarity companies want, while delivering the greenhouse gas reductions that societies, supply chains, and ecosystems need.

API is a large organization with diverse views represented, and the climate task force’s job won’t be easy. But the time for change couldn’t be better.

This post first appeared on the EDF + Business Blog

Also posted in Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Jobs / Read 1 Response