U.S. Climate Plan Blog

Blogging the way to a clean energy future usclimateplan.org @usclimateplan f/usclimateplan

[usclimateplan]

Critiquing the Clean Power Plan, Part Three: The Opportunity

There is no doubt that the Clean Power Plan (CPP) has proved to be an extremely divisive arrangement. Some people have lauded it, claiming that it continues to help pave the way for nationwide emissions cuts and the installation of renewable infrastructure. On the other hand, it has received enormous pushback from fossil fuel lobbyists and litigators, which has led to a Supreme Court-issued stay on the CPP for the time being. Despite these anti-renewable objections to the CPP’s current provisions, at U.S. Climate Plan we know that the CPP does not push the cause far enough and is full of underutilized potential. If we can come together to voice these concerns and suggestions, there are myriad ways in which we can improve upon the CPP’s provisions.

                                                        Source.

The CPP outlines several methods for state governments to comply with emissions reduction targets. States can implement national performance standards for each individual coal- and natural gas-fired plant, they can choose statewide limits, they can opt for a cap-and-trade system centered around mass-based targets, or they can submit their own plan. While all of these aim for the same goal, the most effective route is for states to develop their own measures to attain the mandated reductions. State governments have a better sense of their region’s specific needs, resources, and capabilities than the federal government does. The EPA’s calculations may be accurate, but they do not necessarily account for all the non-mathematical factors that will inevitably influence a state’s compliance efforts. States should choose to devise their own plans, which would enable them to pursue reductions in a manner that is most realistic and accessible for them.

The second crucial way in which states can maximize the potential efficacy of the CPP’s provisions is by fully embracing renewables. The Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) promotes early development of renewable energy installations by providing rewards to states that do so before this September. However, this is an optional program, so states are free to procrastinate, to the detriment of the country. If states work to meet the CEIP deadline, like they should, the reward from the government will merely be the icing on the cake. In terms of short-term benefits, quickly ramping up renewable energy development will result in the creation of new jobs at production plants, and it will of course also improve citizens’ health by stemming the flow of harmful pollutants. Thinking long-term, investing in renewables early will yield financial benefits for states down the line, seeing as coal and other fossil fuel industries are on the decline, while renewables are only gaining momentum in the energy market.

                    These projections speak for themselves. Source.

The next opportunity to build upon the framework of the CPP is to move beyond the power sector. With regard to emissions reduction targets, cuts to the power sector are the only ones that will contribute to CPP compliance. That doesn’t mean that implementation of renewable energy should end there though. Imagine how staggering the results would be if states also pushed for a shift towards electric modes of transportation and more eco-friendly commercial and residential buildings. Restructuring the power grid around renewable energy is essential; however, there are so many other facets of society that should be incorporated in the push to become a cleaner country.

Who wouldn’t want to see more awesome-looking buildings like this Genevan Bamboo Residency, which maximizes both passive and renewable energy?

An indirect way to support these endeavors would be to consider a tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. By placing a fee on the prevalent harmful GHG emissions, states would be able to generate more revenue that could be spent on protecting consumers from price changes or aiding disadvantaged communities. Additionally, this move would send a powerful signal to citizens and corporations alike that fossil fuels are on the way out, and renewables are the focus of the future. This could motivate people, particularly members of the automotive industry, to adapt to renewable designs more quickly.

Amidst all the scientific and logistical considerations that accompany the transition to a renewable energy grid, it is easy to lose sight of the humanistic component. We must not let this happen. As it is, minority groups are exposed to the most harmful effects of climate change and fossil fuel production. As we shift over to renewable energy, we have a vital opportunity to include members of disadvantaged communities in the planning process, to ensure that their concerns are addressed. The CEIP encourages state leadership to do this, but it is more of a suggestion than anything else, which means that in all likelihood very little will be done to directly service the needs of at-risk groups. It’s up to us to come together to demand that all communities are given equal representation as state compliance plans are devised.

                                                       Source.

Minority communities are not the only people that need to be cared for. Thousands of Americans rely upon the coal and oil industries to earn their living. As these markets shrink, factories will close, and innocent people will be left behind without a job. These laborers must not be merely discarded, but instead treated with dignity. There are many possible avenues to help these unfortunate workers, but some of the most effective methods will be to: provide training for laid off workers so that they can pursue new opportunities in the burgeoning renewable field, ensure retirement benefits for laid off workers near retirement, and supply temporary assistance with income and benefits while laid off workers get back on their feet. Average Americans are the backbone of our country, and if we do not take care of them, then we will never have the strength we need to build a better future for our country.

The CPP takes important steps towards a cleaner future, but they are not large enough. However, it has laid a foundation for further efforts to be made, which we must come together to lend our substantial collective power to. We have the ability to push the potential of the CPP to places that the White House isn’t able to, and we can have a profound impact on shaping this country over the next 10 years, and beyond-- as long as we seize the opportunity.

[usclimateplan]

Critiquing the Clean Power Plan, Part Two: The Bad

In our last blog post, we talked about the laudable provisions of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), like its focus on increasing low-income community engagement and replacing coal with more renewable energy. However, as we note in our recent report, it would be naive to say that there aren’t some areas where the CPP is falling short. In this second installment of our CPP analysis series we will explore the missteps that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made.

The CPP purports to cut coal usage by leaning more heavily on cleaner energy sources for electricity generation, like solar and wind power. To an extent this is true, as projections show that coal should experience a steady decline as infrastructure for other energy sources expands.

Energy allotment projections from our CPP analysis indicate increased reliance upon natural gas as coal is phased down.

Yet, this data simultaneously raises a red flag that things may not be progressing in exactly the right direction. The presence of natural gas in America’s energy grid will only continue to grow through 2030, eventually toppling coal as the largest source of electricity. Some, including President Obama, endorse natural gas as a relatively cheap and abundant “clean fuel,” since its combustion in power plants produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than oil and coal. But these natural gas advocates tend to gloss over the drawbacks, such as the large amount of methane that leaks into the atmosphere from drilling operations and pipelines, as well as drinking water pollution that can result from the process of hydraulic fracking.

The Colorado Springs Citizens for Community Rights illustrate the enormous cost of natural gas extraction.

So, keeping the inadequacies of natural gas in mind, why is it that the CPP does not do more to reduce natural gas consumption? Because the EPA underestimates the potential for future growth of renewable energy.

As our chart demonstrates, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind energy production levels are expected to increase a significant amount relative to their 2014 levels irrespective of any CPP provisions. However, the contribution of the CPP to the growth of wind and hydroelectric energy is negligible, as the CPP will only be accountable for a measly 0.1% expansion beyond the 2030 base case scenario in these two crucial renewable energy sources. Since the CPP has been touted by the White House as a milestone for climate change mitigation efforts, it seems fair to expect that the government should make a bigger push to develop the best resources at our disposal, which is clearly not the case under the CPP as written.

Additionally, the EPA has actually enabled several states to legally increase their emissions.

Green and light yellow states are expected to be either well below or hovering right around 2030 CPP emissions compliance targets within the next four years. Source

Based on the above map, it is clear that EPA’s reduction goals are lopsided. On one hand, states with enormous pollution output such as Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and others will be forced to drastically alter their energy profiles in order to meet the 2030 emissions threshold. On the other hand, states like California, Washington, and Oregon are on track to be in compliance with their 2030 goals a decade early. These states are already ahead of the game when it comes to renewable energy. However, the CPP perversely allows them to exploit this loophole by installing more coal and natural gas power plants and actually increase their emissions while still complying with the rule. The CPP’s 2030 targets are well-intentioned, and the EPA strives to adopt a fair approach by standardizing its methodology. Despite the fact that these states will most likely put in place climate policies that will exceed requirements, the temptation to enact weaker initiatives, resulting from the lack of regulatory pressure from these “negative reduction targets,” will surely lower ambition.

Despite the CPP’s positive aspects and the White House’s endeavors to paint it as a shining success, there are just too many mistakes woven into the CPP for it to be a climate game-changer. The CPP’s reliance on false solutions like natural gas, underestimation of renewable energy’s growth potential, and allowance of certain states to legally raise their emissions rates all serve to undermine EPA’s mission of revolutionizing our energy grid. Thankfully, the CPP is not an utter misfire, and there are many things that we can do as a country to take the CPP’s provisions a step further. Stay tuned for this exploration of how we can maximize the usefulness of the CPP in our third and final segment: The Opportunity.

[usclimateplan]

Critiquing the Clean Power Plan, Part One: The Good

A few short months ago, the Obama administration finalized a program that would prove to be highly controversial-- the Clean Power Plan (CPP). This endeavor will play an important role in shaping America’s energy policies and debates far into the future. Therefore, we at U.S. Climate Plan recently released a comprehensive analysis of the CPP to evaluate its nuances. The analysis shines light on the Plan’s valuable components, inadequacies, and opportunities for further action. In this series of blog posts, “The Good, The Bad, and The Opportunity,” we’ll break down each of these aspects and discuss the findings of our report. To start off on a positive note, this installment will focus on what the CPP got right.

Despite many Americans’ best efforts in fighting for equality, a dangerous socioeconomic disparity still persists that has been largely ignored, both by the government and the public. Suzanne Goldenberg, the U.S. environment correspondent for the Guardian, summarizes a UN report on this issue, stating that “those who did the least to cause climate change [will] be the first in the line of fire: the poor and the weak, and communities that [are] subjected to discrimination.” For example, toxic coal ash disposal sites are disproportionately located around low income neighborhoods. Additionally, it is widely acknowledged by environmental scientists that non-white and poor communities are consistently exposed to higher levels of hazardous air pollutants.

From a study published by NIH on the socioeconomic disparities in exposure to dangerous pollutants.

One of the most notable parts of the CPP is the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), which aims to benefit underserved and vulnerable communities. Primarily, the CEIP emphasizes the  necessity of energy efficiency initiatives within low-income communities, and incentivizes early installation of renewable energy infrastructure. In another attempt to rectify this socioeconomic-driven injustice, the CPP will require states to acknowledge and cater to the needs of vulnerable communities through information sharing, public hearings, and public comment periods. The CPP also ensures that states will follow through on this outreach; if states receive a two-year extension to put together their CPP compliance plan, then they must also provide proof that they are engaging vulnerable communities. This enables all people to voice their desires during the creation of state energy plans, and should result in much-needed aid for less advantaged Americans.

Looking at the provisions of the CPP through more of a purely scientific, rather than humanistic lens reveals other important benefits. Primarily, the CPP greatly reduces dependence on coal for energy, and is projected to cut coal generation by over 400 TWh by 2030 (a staggering 28% decrease in coal generation compared to 2014 levels). Given that coal is the dirtiest form of energy, this is a significant step towards removing coal from our energy grid altogether. The CPP also aims to curb energy production derived from biomass, nuclear power, and natural gas (though to a lesser degree than for coal), which are false energy solutions given their limited emissions reduction potential. For a deeper understanding of how natural gas will fail to combat global warming, check out this research publication from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.  As all forms of fossil fuel energy are cut back, the CPP will simultaneously drive the integration of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar and geothermal) more fully into our nation’s grid.

These solutions aren’t perfect, and they aren’t nearly stringent enough. Solar, wind, and geothermal will still only account for 11% of energy production by 2030, while coal and natural gas will still be dominant forces at 28% and 33%, respectively. However, the CPP is a vital effort to redirect America onto the right course. Now, particularly with the presidential elections fast approaching, it’s up to us to make sure that we continue down the cleaner, more just path to which the CPP has opened the door.

[usclimateplan]

COP21: Highlighting an American Identity Crisis

All eyes will be on this week’s COP21 climate talks, which are poised to shape global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and implement more renewable energy. However, if things don’t go smoothly and leaders don’t make aggressive commitments to curb global warming, the world will continue to suffer the consequences of unchecked climate change. No pressure, right?

Unfortunately, that worst case scenario is very much a possibility; even more disheartening is the fact that America may be one of the biggest hindrances to negotiations. After all, this wouldn’t be the first time that America derailed climate conferences with its lack of committal to creating stringent international regulations.

In 1997, Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, which formally compelled signatory nations to reduce carbon emissions. However, Congress refused to ratify the treaty, thus freeing the US from an obligation to pursue GHG reductions; likewise, another major carbon producer, China, did not make any binding commitments. The recalcitrance of America and China to join in the fight against global warming had dire impacts, as the burgeoning emissions of those two countries alone were enough to overpower the reduction efforts made by other countries.

In 2009, the discussions held in Copenhagen resulted in similar disappointment and frustration. Yet again countries attempted to create a global agreement to curb emissions and protect our planet from the ravages of climate change. Yet again developing countries fumed over the reluctance of industrialized nations to set more meaningful GHG reduction goals.

It’s really no surprise that many of the heads-of-state headed to COP21 are wary of America’s commitment, given our government’s unimpressive pattern of behavior at these summits. Just recently, President Hollande of France said that “if the [COP21] agreement is not legally binding, there is no agreement.” Meanwhile, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, has cautioned that a binding treaty is not likely. Admittedly, his reservations stem from a fear of our Republican-controlled Congress blocking any formal agreements, as with the Kyoto Protocol, and not from ideological objection to the talks. Obama will (hopefully) be pushing hard for ambitious goals that America can unofficially strive for, thereby circumventing Congress’ interference.

However, the fact that the US president, one of the most powerful men in the world, has to search for loopholes just to help protect our country and our planet from global warming speaks volumes about the state of America. Congress is meant to be an embodiment of the will of the people. So why is it even a worry that our representatives will prevent COP21 from implementing the carbon-cutting measures that the world so desperately needs, when 72% of polled Americans support an international climate change agreement? The answer is that American citizens are apathetic.

Another example of the majority perspective among Americans

We complain about the ineffectiveness and injustice of our government’s actions and policies, yet we seldom do anything to make a change in the system. It is too late to start influencing the outcome of the Paris talks, but it is never too late to start raising our voices in favor of a more just future. If the majority of Congressmen have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not concerned about the devastating consequences of climate change, then it’s time for us to replace them with people who will actually fight for our values and our safety. We have that power. It’s time for us to use it.

At US Climate Plan, we are working to activate the millennial generation's passive support for government action on the unfolding climate crisis to build public pressure for policy changes that match the scale of the challenge. Learn more about our mission, our work and our team on our website (and don’t forget to subscribe to us while you’re there!).

If you would like to take action to help train the next generation of leaders, but are unsure how to do so, donating to Future Power is a great first step. We hope to ensure that America’s leadership drives support for future carbon-cutting opportunities like the Kyoto Protocol and COP21 instead of hindering them; you can help us make that a reality. 

[usclimateplan]

Big Coal’s Decline: Americans Left in the Ashes

The coal industry is doomed. The president of Appalachian Power acknowledged as much a few days ago during a meeting of energy executives. Big Coal has increasingly tightened its belt as numerous factors, including the speculation surrounding the proposed regulations of Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the boom of natural gas, have cut into its profits.

At first glance, this might seem like cause for celebration. After all, coal is the dirtiest source of energy and produces the most carbon emissions out of all fossil fuels. However, the issue is not so simple as that. When mines are deemed unprofitable to maintain, and are subsequently shut down, the employees are the ones left hurting the most. Certain areas, like Appalachia, have a long depended upon coal mining as a primary way for people to earn a living. Between 2008-2014, eastern Kentucky experienced a 50% decrease in coal-related jobs. As coal companies cut their losses and run, many Americans are left with career prospects as desolate as the soot-stained mines around them.

Thankfully, the Obama administration has realized that the transition into an increasingly renewable-powered society will not be easy, and the government must support the victims of the coal catastrophe. To that end, Obama promises to commit $14.5 million to help retrain ex-coal workers and enable them to find work in new and diverse energy fields. Moreover, the president’s proposed Power+ Plan takes these efforts a step further by budgeting more than a billion additional dollars for job creation, training, and health & retirement security for mine-workers, among other things.

Time will tell how effective these measures end up being, but it is definitely a vital endeavor. One thing is certain: whatever form of energy becomes the next industry titan, corporations cannot be allowed to become so entrenched in regions that communities implode when the companies close shop and leave town. The Obama administration’s proposed mitigation efforts are a step in the right direction, but more federal action will surely be required to help miners and their communities rise from the ashes of Big Coal.

[usclimateplan]

No More Compromising: on the resilience of youth and #OurGenerationOurChoice

Yesterday, hundreds of youth in DC shut down the intersection in front of the White House demanding plans for justice on race, climate change, and immigration from our government and 2016 candidates a year out from the next election. It was a creative and empowering action made possible by United We Dream, Million Hoodies for Justice, Fossil Fuel Divestment Student Network, and 350.org,  along with U.S. Climate Plan and dozens of other social and environmental justice organizations who contributed to the mobilization, workshops, and trainings that weekend.

We started the morning with a rally where speakers that included Million Hoodies’ executive director Dante Barry, campaign coordinator Yong Jung Cho from 350, and Cheyenne River Sioux tribe members Jasilyn Charger and Trenton Casil­las-Bake­berg shared personal stories on why our movements must intersect in order to be meaningful. We remembered the colonization of this land and the continued colonization of the global South, the police terrorizing black and brown communities, the detention and deportation of undocumented people (which disproportionately affects queer and trans folks), and the fossil fuel industry polluting and poisoning our land and water.

Chalk art that reads “Black Lives Matter”, “Climate Change”, and “Immigration Reform”.

With such massive systemic issues facing our generation, it is critical that our seemingly separate movements work together and recognize the intersections of our work. The violence of climate change disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color even though these communities are the least responsible for our warming planet. These communities are also the most heavily policed and criminalized. Moreover, the same people who profit off our extractive industry also profit off investments in our prison system who incarcerate and murder black, brown, indigenous, and undocumented people.

#OurGenerationOurChoice was a manifestation of this intersectionality. Our signs read “Reforma Migratoria”,  “Demilitarize the Police”, and “Divest Now”, among others. We chanted #BlackLivesMatter, “Shut it down”, and “the youth are rising, no more compromising” while painting and chalking the streets. We blockaded the intersection for two hours.

Protesters painting a mural in the middle of the blockade. It reads “Resist, Reinvest, Reconstruct”.

The day before we took the streets, college students and youth converged in Arlington to prepare for the action and learn skills they could take back home to their communities. The space was filled with the passion and wisdom of folks that are willing and ready to fight for what is rightfully ours: the right to thrive. Seasoned organizers and activists shared their knowledge and experience with folks that were getting involved for the first time, and these new activists shared a contagious energy and perspective with those of us that needed the reminder that we are a resilient people.

To the folks who I met this weekend: we know this work can be so difficult. We grew up under a system that intends to separate us at all costs, and yet, we continue to push ourselves, each other, and our country to do better.  I believe in you, I care for you, and I’m grateful for you. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for and our resistance is resilience.

This is just the beginning! Use the power and energy we cultivated on the streets yesterday to build up power back home- Join the Future Power campaign today. Our initiative supports student and youth climate activists in building powerful movements for government action on climate change consistent with a just and livable future.

[usclimateplan]

Keystone XL: You Did It.

I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I needed to let you know. After almost 6 years of resistance, President Obama just rejected the Keystone XL pipeline because of the impact it would have on the climate. This is a big deal. It’s the first project ever to be rejected on the grounds that it would worsen climate change, which could set a massive new precedent for the future of energy decisions in this country and the world. But the real reason this is a big deal is because it shows what’s possible when millions of ordinary people stand up and speak out to demand what’s right. President Obama didn’t stop this pipeline—you did.

Six years ago they said this project was a done deal, but then the climate movement came together to elevate the pipeline to a top national issue and made the decision a test of the President’s resolve on climate change. I personally participated in and helped organize too many actions against the Keystone XL pipeline to count—including when we supported sit-ins at Senate offices to pressure on-the-fence Democrats to vote against a bill to force the pipeline’s approval, ultimately resulting in the bill failing to secure the needed votes.

As I reflect on the amazing work that activists of all walks of life—from scientists to nurses, from faith leaders to farmers, from cowboys to indians—have done to make today’s announcement a reality, the most powerful action I took part in was a youth-led and youth organized action that resulted in almost 400 young people being arrested for chaining themselves to the White House fence.

Youth chain themselves to the fence in front of the White House and stage an oil spill “die-in”.

There’s something incredibly emotionally powerful to me about young people taking a stand for their future and standing in solidarity with the communities already on the front lines of extraction and climate change. These youth gave President Obama an ultimatum: either you reject this pipeline or you reject our right to a livable future.

This first-of-its-kind action was made possible by passionate students reaching beyond their campuses to connect with each other and organize nationally. I truly believe that this is the type of work that will shift the public narrative in this country and put pressure on our government leaders to act at the scale necessary to embrace a prosperous and just clean energy future. It’s the type of work we’re trying to enable with Future Power, our initiative to support student and youth climate activists in building powerful movements for government action on climate change consistent with a just and livable future. If you know young people with campaigns or ideas who could use our support, tell them to join Future Power and we’ll be in touch with next steps.

This victory would not have happened without you. Take a moment to breathe and find a chance to celebrate with others who lent their voices to say no to this pipeline. Our work — to say yes to policy solutions and a just clean energy future — would also not be possible without you. If you can, pitch in to help us keep it up for the long haul. Keystone XL is just the first domino to fall.

Onward,

Evan WeberExecutive Director, U.S. Climate Plan

[usclimateplan]

White House Frackdown

Instead of lining up for food trucks for Tuesday’s lunch hour, we decided to enjoy the sunshine a different way; local fracktivists gathered outside the White House for a Global Frackdown to deliver a letter, signed by over 1,200 organizations worldwide, that urges President Obama and other global leaders to reject fracking and natural gas as a solution to the climate crisis. “Fracking amounts to inaction, and it is anathema to developing sustainable energy systems available to all and premised on the efficient use of safe, abundant, affordable and renewable energy resources, subject to regional conditions and constraints,” the letter states. An increase in natural gas use shifts the focus and resources away from real clean energy solutions; not to mention its reputation for increasing air and water pollution, being a danger to public health, and producing leaks of one of the most potent of greenhouse gases, methane.

Gathered in a sign-waving, chant-crying huddle, we welcomed Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity to get the ball rolling and introduce the speakers whose range of sectors are all deeply impacted by fracking. Food and Water Watch’s Darcey O’Callaghan kicked us off with a clear demand for President Obama: ban fracking now. Marianne Comfort from Sisters of Mercy reiterated that message and the necessity for it if we are committed to justice for all. National Nurses United’s Betty Richardson-Robin shed light on fracking’s clear and present danger to public health and reminded the President that are no jobs on a dead planet. Next, we heard from Julia West of Fossil Free American University, about her personal struggles with exploitation by the fossil fuel industry in her Pennsylvania hometown. “At what point did energy become more important than human life?” she asked. Finally, Hip Hop Caucus’ Rev. Yearwood, Jr. reminded us of the importance of the upcoming Paris talks and that clean energy is not a party issue, but a humanitarian one.

Bill brought us home with one last chant to ban fracking NOW as we dispersed with hopeful attitudes and confidence that we had been heard. 

[usclimateplan]

Hey! I organize because of us.

Hi! I’m Rachel Stevens and I’m the new National Field Organizer for U.S. Climate Plan! I’m honored and grateful to have the opportunity to work with young people and create the political will necessary for real solutions around national climate policy and climate justice.

I was first introduced to the climate movement when I attended the Sierra Student Coalition’s Southeast Sprog program in 2012. That program—especially the anti-oppression trainings, gave me a vocabulary for my experience as a biracial woman of color from a working class background, and for my passions as a person who wanted to do something about the current state of our world. I remembered hanging out at my dad’s house as a teenager using the police station and juvenile detention center as landmarks to make my way home and not wondering why it was on the same block as the elementary school in our predominantly black neighborhood. I remembered a significant amount of my high school classmates’ relatives struggling with addiction and alcoholism in my working class neighborhood where my mom and sisters lived and not considering how lack of accessible health care and the isolation one experiences under capitalism played a part in their destruction.

I remember in 2004 when hurricane Charley, Frances, and Jeanne plowed through central and Southwest Florida in a matter of weeks, the first hurricane that the area had in four decades. I was starting 7th grade just finishing my first week of school when my mother told me that we had to move into a relative’s house because our house may not make it through the storms. It was such a strange feeling for me to think that our house may not be there when we go back. As I reflected on my childhood I realized the absurdity of the current Governor Rick Scott being a climate change denier while sea-level rise is displacing south Florida residents, like, RIGHT NOW.

This was all understandably overwhelming. What am I supposed to do in a system that’s set up to police, erase, silence, mock, poison, and ultimately annihilate poor folks, people of color, disabled folks, or anyone who is not a wealthy, white, straight cisgendered man? What am I supposed to do when the slow violence of climate change and fossil fuel extraction is eroding on the livelihoods of frontline communities? What am I supposed to do to get free?

Luckily, there are really amazing people in this world amidst the muck of systemic oppression. Upon returning to my university for the fall semester, a field organizer from Southern Energy Network who was staffing Sprog decided to “organize” me—meaning, we became friends. She recognized something in me that I didn’t recognize at the time. She empowered me to see the power I had to make change, while mentoring me in how I could make that change. She taught me how to recruit my peers into the movement, create and sustain meaningful relationships, and directed me to resources on how organizing and social movements were the movers of history, not fate or inevitability. More importantly, she pulled me out of my feelings of isolation and apathy. The rest of my college career was spent mobilizing my campus for various environmental causes and in the following years becoming a trainer and director for the Sprog grassroots training program that originally inspired me. Most recently I had an apprenticeship with the Sierra Club as an organizer in Seattle in Los Angeles working on moving communities beyond coal.

The most valuable lesson my mentor taught me was that we cannot do this work alone. We absolutely need each other if we are to sustain ourselves physically, emotionally, and spiritually through this work.  I was never alone throughout any of the campaigns I was a part of. I counted on my relationships to support me, and they are my motivation to continue to organize for climate justice. If we are really fighting for climate justice, we have to dig deep on what it means to strive for collective liberation and understand that there’s potent transformative power in the relationships we have with our friends, families, and communities here and abroad.

As I settle into my new position with USCP, I’m dreaming of ways that the young people I have the privilege to work with will rock our world with innovative solutions for climate justice and holding our governments accountable to those solutions. I’m also hoping that through this work, we can continue to have deeper and deeper realizations on what it means to be there for each other as comrades in this work. We all have a stake in climate justice and we all have a stake in the well-being of each other.

-Rachel S.

"If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time; but if you are here because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together." -Lilla Watson

[usclimateplan]

A Glimpse Into the Future of Renewable Energy

    Last Thursday, dozens of people convened in the Falk Auditorium of the Brookings Institute to hear a presentation from Heymi Bahar and Michael Waldron, two renewable energy market analysts from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The pair was in DC to launch the IEA's “Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2015,” which was not nearly as dry as the title might initially suggest. Gliding through slides full of colorful charts and maps, Bahar and Waldron examined the current trends in renewable growth (the focus was primarily on electricity, but heating and transportation were also addressed).

    Waldron's excitement was palpable as he stated that renewable electricity will account for the greatest portion of electricity growth in the next five years, citing recent technological advancements and more supportive financing options as contributing factors. Bahar and Waldron's projections for the next few years clearly indicated that when unimpeded, onshore wind and solar installations will continue to become a dominant force in in the energy sector, usurping fossil fuels and natural gas.

    That optimism came with a warning though: America is it's own worst enemy in the struggle to outfit the country with clean energy. The projections for what can be achieved within the next decade are greatly contingent upon the amount of legislative support that the government provides. Many renewable-friendly tax incentives expire in the next couple of years, and unless the federal government legislates more (and more forceful) policies, Bahar and Waldron predict that there will be a sharp decline in renewable growth between 2016 and 2017.

    We can meet our goals of curbing global warming. The IEA is confident that the stage is set for a significant clean energy revolution in the coming decade; the policy just has to back up the technology, which is unfortunately easier said than done. Looking at the determined faces gathered in that auditorium, the faces of people from all walks of life united by a common concern for the future, one thing was crystal clear: it's going to take everyone, everywhere to demand federal commitment to the renewable growth that we know is possible. 

[usclimateplan]

DC Joins the People’s Climate Movement’s Day of Action

Yesterday, thousands gathered at nearly 200 actions nationwide to join the People’s Climate Movement’s National Day of Action. Here in DC, several hundred participants began trickling into Franklin Square around rush hour, eager to be a part of this movement. Members from Greenpeace, SEIU, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Interfaith Power & Light, CASA, DC Working Families, 350, Moms Clean Air Force, Public Citizen, and more joined together to get DC’s day of action running smoothly. Once the beautiful art was distributed and after an inspiring call to action from our MC, we were off to the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Upon arrival at API’s doorstep, we chanted in opposition to their involvement in unjust trade deals such as the TPP and plans of blocking the upcoming climate talks in Paris.  We then took to the ground in a giant die-in, spilling onto the streets; mothers holding their children drove the message home and reinforced the urgency to protect future generations.

With the die-in complete, we made our way through the streets onward to Freedom Plaza. Here, there were celebrations and sing-alongs to bring the crowd back together. People were asked to speak to their reasons for attending and what climate change means to them. A young girl’s exclamation of, “I love Mother Earth!” said it all. We heard from local climate leaders and activists who shared with us insight on the wonderful work they have been accomplishing. We ended the day with one last sing-along to This Little Light of Mine, bringing the crowd into embraces and laughs.

“This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.”

[yearsoflivingdangerously]

This comic was produced in partnership by Years of Living Dangerously and Symbolia Magazine. For more amazing real life comics, get Symbolia on your iPad or via PDF. And for more information on the biggest story of our time - check out YEARS.

[usclimateplan]

Reflections of a climate justice activist on the path forward on climate policy, ten years after Katrina

On July 21st, 1954, my mother, who would grow up to become a labor and delivery nurse, was herself delivered in the Charity Hospital in New Orleans, Louisiana.

On August 29th, 2005, over half a century later, I watched with my mother and father on television from a quarter of the way around the world as the levees broke and the streets of New Orleans filled with water, the people struggled for life, and buildings—including the Charity Hospital—flooded and were abandoned.

On August 29th, 2015, I saw the place of my mother’s birth for the first time: a colossal empty shell of a building, still abandoned, ten years later. I completed the pilgrimage to the place of my mother’s birth to mark the ten year commemoration of Hurricane Katrina and participate in events organized by Gulf South Rising, a regional movement of groups and individuals on the frontlines of recovery from and resistance to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Katrina was the costliest storm in U.S. history, the strongest storm to make landfall in the U.S. in the 21st century, and—with upwards of 1,200 confirmed deaths—the deadliest. While no one hurricane, superstorm, heatwave, wildfire, or drought can be fully attributed to our rapidly warming world, we do know that sea-level rise and hotter-than-average air and water create the conditions that fuel more damaging and devastating storms like Hurricane Katrina.

As climate change gets worse, the intensity of storms like Katrina could become the new norm, but that doesn’t mean damage and devastation are inevitable. Hurricane Katrina particularly illustrated how disasters and associated policies can disproportionately impact the most vulnerable amongst us. Ten years later, it’s worth reflecting on the range of policies that could help us avoid another Katrina.

Disaster policy is climate policy

When I think about the reasons that I care about climate change and climate justice, I think about disasters like Hurricane Katrina, so it was particularly important and impactful for me to be on the ground reflecting with and learning from the people most impacted by the storm. 

In mainstream conversations about climate policy, we often talk exclusively about reducing emissions or how to adapt to a warmer world. While these things are undoubtedly important, climate change is about more than CO2 particles and rising seas: it’s about people. 

As a result, thinking about how our governments treat people in disaster situations—whether a superstorm in the Gulf or a megadrought in California—is one of the most important climate policy considerations out there.

Human rights and protecting the most vulnerable

In a recent speech advocating for climate action in Alaska, President Obama spoke of “desperate refugees seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own” as a result of climate change, saying “that’s not a future where freedom and human rights are on the move.” But what about the “refugees” within our own borders? What of their freedom and human rights?

Katrina caused the internal displacement of over 1 million survivors from the Gulf Coast region to other parts of the United States. From New Orleans, the vast majority of these residents were African-American, a disproportionate number of whom have been unable to return. As one might expect, the recovery from the storm has been uneven across race and class. In many cases, this was by design through the policies, decisions, and actions of local, state and federal governments.

We all remember when Kanye West famously went off-script on national television to say that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but what led him to believe this? Well, if you look at the administration’s response to the storm, it becomes clear that there were many things prioritized ahead of the protection of black lives and the restoration of black communities. In some instances there was knowing and intentional neglect.

Former FEMA director Michael Brown is quoted as saying that the administration used the disaster as an opportunity to score political points against Louisiana’s Democratic Governor. The White House ordered that power crews be diverted from public hospitals to repair a pipeline to send oil and gas to the Northeast. Later, the fossil-fuel-funded, climate-change-denying Heritage Foundation supported the administration and its “recovery czar” Karl Rove in implementing a sweeping suite of neoliberal policy changes that swept away worker protections, suspended environmental rules, contributed to permanent displacement of many of the region’s poorest, and cut taxes for the wealthiest. These are just a few of the many examples.

The local government, for its part, has not handled things much better. In many cases, the government and its influencers used Katrina as an opportunity to put in place plans that were already in motion, but that they might not have gotten away with otherwise. Several weeks after the storm, the city fired the entire staff of the public school system, which was overwhelmingly black, and replaced it with an influx of new charter schools and out-of-state Teach for America recent college graduates unfamiliar with the cultural context. All public housing was fully or partially demolished. The ability to vote was also stripped away by poor and black temporarily displaced communities, since they could no longer provide proof of residence; this limited their ability to elect leaders and hold political power over the decisions influencing their home and further contributed to a reshaping of their communities.

The Charity Hospital, where my mother was born, was a public hospital. It’s doors were open to almost anyone in need. It served the poor and those without insurance. When Katrina hit, the first floor of the hospital was flooded, and the hospital had to be evacuated. After a few weeks, and the tireless efforts of hospital staff and volunteers, hospital staff reported that Charity was ready to start taking patients again. In that time, city officials and others had already decided that they wanted to put into motion long held plans to abandon the public hospital and build a new facility. So they called Charity in-operational, sabotaged it, abandoned it, boarded it up, and took FEMA money to support building a new facility. The new hospital to replace it? It just opened a few months ago. In the critical time in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, and in the decade since then, there was no other hospital to serve those in the most need.

Much of this was made possible by the little-known Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which among other things, doesn’t ensure basic human rights such as education, healthcare, and housing from internally displaced individuals, allows the federal government to have full discretion as to whether it intervenes in disasters, and limits public participation in recovery planning processes. Allowing nearly-unlimited discretion in disaster response results in those with the least political power and influence becoming even further disenfranchised, having their voices silenced, and their needs unmet. It’s clear to see how this can play out in a country like ours by comparing the government response to Hurricane Katrina with that of Hurricane Sandy.

Laws and policies are tools for expressing the values of our society. What do our climate and disaster policies say about our values? Monique Harden, the co-founder of Advocates for environmental human rights, said at a plenary session during the ten year commemoration that: 

“New Orleans is ground zero for human rights policy for internally displaced people in the United States. It’s critical that we get this right for whomever will be affected by the next climate disaster.” 

At a separate event, Dr. Bob Bullard, considered the “father” of the environmental justice movement in the United States, added:  

“When we protect the most vulnerable, we protect us all. That is how we will achieve climate justice.” 

To do so, we must move forward thinking about climate change as a human rights issue, and incorporate human rights into any and all climate policy decisions.

Left to right: Dr. Bob Bullard, Dr. Beverly Wright, Jabari Mickles. Monique Harden, and Aaron Mair

Following the leadership of the most impacted

I think about climate policy every day. It’s my job. And as a millennial who hasn’t experienced a single month with temperatures cooler than the 20th century average, I’ve grown up seeing and understanding the perils that climate change might cause in my lifetime; I feel an urge to think about the types of solutions that can lessen the risks to mine and future generations. As someone who grew up in Hawai’i, I’ve watched as my own shorelines slowly recede, beaches disappear, and coral reefs die off.

Even still, I haven’t experienced the trauma of extreme weather claiming my loved ones before their time. I haven’t been forced out of the community I call home without the ability to return. I haven’t floated helplessly, stuck between piles of debris, wondering if anyone would ever come to save me. I haven’t lived through a recovery and watched the ways that the uneven political economy of different races and classes slowly contributes to a reshaping of my city over a decade.

So while I may grasp the scale of investment and shift in incentives necessary to stabilize our climate and protect the most vulnerable in a changing world at a macro level, how could I ever understand the nuances of what’s truly necessary to create a society that protects all equally? I can’t, and that’s why it’s so important for those of us who care about the climate crisis to listen to and take leadership from those who have experienced disaster to collectively learn the types of societal shifts we need to create a just and livable future for all.

The best defense is a good offense

In the coming years and decades, the United States is likely to continue breaking heat, extreme weather, and disaster records. We’ve already put far more than a safe amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, it would take a while for our planet to return to a healthy equilibrium. That being said, there’s still time to avoid the worst impacts. Until we stabilize and zero out global emissions, we are continuing to increase the chances that there will not only be another Katrina, but that there will be something worse. We’re stacking the odds against the full recovery of New Orleans and the Gulf coast.

Scientifically, we are most responsible for climate change; we’re the overwhelming leader in historical greenhouse gas pollution. Politically, we are most responsible because as a global superpower, the world is watching and waiting for us to act boldly. The United States must lead on comprehensive policies to reduce emissions to safe and equitable levels and fund climate adaptation and resilience within our own borders and abroad. Just as importantly, we must look honestly at what what happened 10 years ago with Katrina and in the decade since then and use that learning as an opportunity to set the gold standard for human rights in disaster situations.

 For the survivors of Katrina, for vulnerable peoples and countries around the world, and for future generations, we have an obligation to learn from our mistakes, listen to the leadership of the impacted, and put in place policies to prevent further catastrophes.

[usclimateplan]

BREAKING: 20+ Midwest Youth Arrested In Front of John Kerry’s House Protesting Illegal Tar Sands Pipeline

Over 20 youth and students from Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other states, under the banner of #MidwestUnrest, were just arrested in front of Secretary of State John Kerry’s home in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC for protesting the Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline. The pipeline was quietly approved by the State Department via a backdoor deal which allowed the massive project, which would transport quantities of oil comparable to the Keystone XL pipeline through Minnesota, to forego an environmental review.

After trying to petition the State Department, rally support from other politicians, and other attempts to engage with the political process, these young constituents had enough enough of their cries for justice being ignored. In response, they issued a call to action — a call to escalate — and they hopped on buses to Washington, D.C. to bring their message to Secretary John Kerry’s front door. 

Knowing about the action in advance, the police set up barricades in front of the house...but that didn’t stop these young people:

A crowd of DC allies came out to support the activists and let Secretary Kerry know that we are all paying attention to his State Department’s backdoor deals:

Eventually the police began moving in, but the crowd kept singing and chanting:

In the end, it became clear that—chained together like a human pipeline— these youth would not be moved. So after over 4 hours in front of the Kerry’s home, police moved in to arrest them.

Still, their message was heard, and this is just the beginning. 

Secretary Kerry knows the threat that climate change poses to our future, and he himself committed civil disobedience in his youth as a part of the Vietnam war movement, standing up for what he believed was right. Young people will not sit idly by while our future is sold away to those wishing to make a quick profit. We are asking Secretary Kerry to stand with us. While our leaders may prefer silence or empty words over action, we are rising up. We are unstoppable, because we know that another world is possible.

You can join us in organizing together for a just clean energy future at: http://bit.ly/FUTUREPOWER

Donate to support #MidwestUnrest activists here: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/help-support-midwest-unrest

[uscpblog-blog-blog]

If we’re going to win...

Last week I was on the floor of congress, where I was invited by the Democratic minority to testify on the Obama Administration’s “Social Cost of Carbon,” a measurement that allows the federal government to account for future climate damages when doing cost-benefit analyses for federal rulemaking. It’s a simple, common sense rule, and I was there to speak on its importance, why it needs to be kept accurate, and why it could be much higher.

Sensible people might debate how such a cost—the cost of climate damages that we are already experiencing—might be calculated, but in that hearing room I was surrounded by very few sensible people. 

The other witnesses—representatives for fossil fuel front group think-tanks like The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute—had been brought there to question whether the federal government should be even thinking about climate change…and whether climate change is even real. Sadly, many members of the committee were not only entertaining this, but encouraging it with leading questions.

It’s 2015, and our Congress is so far behind the times and out of touch with the American people that it is still debating the reality of climate change with the help of fossil-fuel funded climate deniers. To be sure, the national climate movement has made significant breakthroughs — diversifying its ranks and shuttering the 200th coal fired power plant. Yet, emissions are still climbing and we’re still not on the path towards climate justice for all.

To get there, we’ll ultimately need action from Congress. And to get that, we’ll need to build a movement with enough people power to — once and for all — stop  fossil fuel interests that are polluting our communities, our atmosphere, and our democracy. 

If we’re going to win, it’s going to take all of us who care getting involved.

So let’s grow this movement. If you, like us, believe that building a movement for bold national climate policy is the most important thing we can be doing to take on the climate crisis, we want you to help us grow our list of supporters. We’ve got big things coming in the next few weeks, and we’ve set a short-term goal to add 300 more people to our email list. Share this with your friends, family, parents, and fellow future fighters and tell them to sign up to join our movement.

Click here to share on Facebook.

Click here to share on Twitter.

We’re all in this together, we can’t do this without you, and we need to get bigger.

In solidarity,

Dr. Michael K. Dorsey

Co-founder and Vice President of Strategy and Operations, U.S. Climate Plan

P.S. Not convinced? Read our Policy Director Matt Lichtash’s recent article on why it’s imperative that the U.S. lead.

[usclimateplan]

Natural Gas Is Not Clean Energy, Not A Climate Solution

The media gives undue airtime to those who deny the science of climate change or say that doing something about it would tank the economy, and spends so little time talking about the potential of clean energy development or giving clean energy industry leaders some time in the spotlight. These leaders can inform the conversation by providing insight on what we have accomplished, what we can accomplish, and how we should move forward in transitioning into a clean energy economy. Fortunately, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is more than willing to hand these industries a microphone, and a few weeks ago EESI hosted the 18th Annual Congressional Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency EXPO + Forum on Capitol Hill. The event comprised a policy panel for clean energy industry leaders to share their experiences, an expo showcasing current clean energy development and achievements, and a platform for members of Congress to tout their support for clean energy investment.

The policy forum brought together leaders from across the clean energy industry to discuss what they have achieved, what they could achieve, and what’s standing in the way. Though each panel had a different focus, from solar, wind, or hydropower development to health and economic benefits of development, the discussions all ended on the same note: “we’ve come a long way in the past few years, but we’ve barely scratched the surface of where we could go.” Leaders across the industry, regardless of focus, cited the same restrictions standing in the way: a combination of bad policies that stifle development. As industries leaders described, policies can both be our greatest tool pushing us forward or greatest barrier holding us back.

These speakers were certainly correct in part to blame the lack of political will down the hall in Congressional offices. But that is only part of the picture. In order to fully explain why there is reluctance for a full transition into a clean energy economy that would create jobs, reduce health costs, and mitigate the worst consequences of climate change, one would only have to look across the podium at some of the speakers from the natural gas industry.

To say the least, I was surprised to see leaders of the natural gas industry sharing the stage with wind, solar, and hydropower leaders at what was meant to be a clean energy expo. It seems ridiculous to even compare a resource like wind, which has zero emissions, to natural gas, which emits dangerous levels of methane (a gas far more potent than carbon dioxide). And yet, the natural gas industry was able to participate in the event as if it were truly a clean energy solution.

This begs the question, why are we still talking about natural gas? We don’t need it technologically — our country has the potential and resources to run solely on renewable energy sources, and to do so more efficiently than we do now. We don’t need it economically — real renewable resources are more cost effective than fracking and will create more jobs. Clean energy development brings in 17 jobs for every $1 Million invested; for the same investment, natural gas only brings in 5. Natural gas certainly isn’t good for public health; the methane emitted into our air is more toxic to human health than carbon dioxide. And it doesn’t pass the climate test, since its methane emissions will only exacerbate the climate change crisis. So why are we talking about it?

As with most things, it comes down to the politics. Natural gas has been mentioned so often by pundits, the industry, and (unfortunately) some within the climate community that it has snowballed into a false solution, behind which politicians can hide. So long as natural gas development continues, those who accept the climate reality but are not courageous enough to act have the perfect cover. In an attempt to explain political inaction on climate change, Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) joked at the expo “I work with some of the greatest minds of the 18th century.” Natural gas has been propped up for far too long as a sign of progress by the industry, their public relations firms, and lobbyists in congress, and having the ability to point to natural gas investment as a sign of action has become a crutch for political “leaders” eager to please but not willing to change.

So while learning about the incredible advancements made in truly clean energy and the enormity of our potential was motivating, the event underscored just how much of the conversation we need to change. In this case, we need to remove “natural gas” from our vocabulary when discussing renewable energy in order to propel our leaders into action. The event also proved what we at U.S. Climate Plan already know: the transition to a truly clean energy economy is just beyond our grasp, but it’s up to all of us to bring the heat to anyone who claims natural gas as a real solution.

[usclimateplan]

With Congress Lagging, State Advocates Pave the Way for State-Level Carbon Taxes

In our fight for climate action, there is certainly a lesson we can learn from the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality ruling: states and state legislatures have great power and potential to set the federal agenda and build momentum for federal policies. Marriage equality was legalized in Massachusetts 16 years ago, and as more states followed suit, the pressure for a federal policy built until the federal government had to act.

Just as federal marriage equality was a pipe dream when Massachusetts campaigners won their first victory, a federal price on carbon is today an elusive goal—but, in similar fashion, it’s possible that a couple state-level breakthroughs could pave the way for national action. Though Congress isn’t likely to change its stance on carbon pricing until 2016 at the earliest, state-level advocates aren’t waiting around—they’re already lobbying their state houses for a state carbon tax in order to build pressure for a federal carbon tax.

Two weeks ago, we brought leaders of state carbon pricing campaigns in Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Washington, New York, and Oregon together to share their campaigns and strategize on how we can build pressure for national action. They cited the economic benefits of a carbon tax, the included tax reform, the health benefits, and the allure of being painted as leaders as opportunities to bring state legislators on board. Still, despite the fact that 66% of Americans say they would be more likely to vote for politicians that support proactive climate and renewable energy policies, state legislatures are dragging their feet. Nobody is willing to be the first to cross the Rubicon.

Ultimately the stagnancy comes down to a lack of political courage. Still, these advocates are not allowing the current political climate to deter them. Dedicated to pushing for carbon taxes on the state level, they continue to work to change the political climate itself. In Massachusetts, for example, advocates have united environmental groups and private businesses to lobby a moderately conservative state house; there is currently a carbon tax bill pending with considerable support that would return revenue from the tax back to residents. Similarly, advocates in Vermont have built a coalition of environmental leaders and over 200 businesses, most notably Ben & Jerry’s, to demand carbon pricing in the state. They have also helped introduce two bills. Meanwhile in Rhode Island, advocates are pushing forward the Clean Energy Investment and Carbon Pricing Act, which would impose a carbon tax on all fossil fuels at the first point of sale within the state. Though this bill has been tabled for this session, advocates are confident it will gain support in the next session and pass by 2016. Generally in New England, state legislators are both hesitant to act without the rest of the region while also eager to stand out as leaders. Advocates from all three campaigns continue to play on the latter, and hope to build enough enthusiasm that a bill will pass by 2016.  

Outside of New England in New York, a coalition of environmental, faith, and labor groups are riding on momentum from the People’s Climate March to gain support for a bill that would make New York the first state to use 100% clean energy by 2030, starting with a carbon tax. On the West Coast, advocates in Washington are running a revenue-neutral carbon tax campaign with a ballot initiative. So far, over 50K Washingtonians have signed to introduce a carbon tax initiative on the 2016 ballot. Carbon Washington predicts that there is enough public support to hit 100K by the end of July, and the necessary 315K by the end of the year. Likewise, advocates in Oregon are working to build support for price-and-dividend solution which would send revenues directly back to households in the form of monthly checks. This past June, Oregon Climate packed the legislature (and overflow rooms) for hearings on their bills. Here is some worthwhile and informative testimony from one such hearing.

Aside from getting directly involved, the best way to help these campaigns and propel our leaders into action is to harness the power of the national media. We need to work to ensure that the campaigns receive the national attention they deserve, both to increase the visibility of these specific  campaigns and to introduce the carbon tax to the national conversation. We at U.S. Climate Plan are working to broadcast updates and garner the media coverage that these campaigns both deserve and require. But it doesn’t stop there. You too can help by spreading the word to your friends and family on social media, over email, or in conversation.

To learn more about these campaigns, visit our site about state carbon pricing.

To support our work with the State Carbon Pricing Network, consider donating today. Your contributions will help us dedicate needed resources towards connecting existing campaigns and inspiring new ones.

We can’t wait 16 years for federal climate action. And if the first step is action from multiple state governments, then state legislators need to take these carbon pricing initiatives seriously. It’s up to us to garner the national attention to take control of the microphone and demand that they do so.