The Public Service Company of New Mexico is asking for project proposals, including renewables and battery storage, designed to help reach its coal-free goal by 2031.
A joint study by Finland’s Lappeenranta University of Technology and Energy Watch Group presented on the sidelines of the COP23 talks in Bonn demonstrates that a global transition to 100% renewable electricity could be achieved by 2050, and would be more cost effective than the current electricity system.
The study, ‘Global Energy System Based on 100% Renewable Energy – Power Sector’ was presented during the Global Renewable Energy Solutions Showcase event, a sideline to the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP23 currently underway in Bonn.
The study’s key overall finding is that a global shift to 100% renewable electricity is feasible with current technology, and would be more cost effective than the current system led by fossil fuels and nuclear generation.
The study found that in a projected scenario for energy demand in 2050, 100% could be met by current renewable technologies, at a global average LCOE of €52/MWh, compared with 2015’s average LCOE of €70.
In EWG’s 2050 scenario, solar PV covers 69% of electricity demand, wind 18%, hydro 8% and bioenergy 2%. The study predicts that wind will briefly overtake solar in the 2020s, before further price drops put solar back in the lead.
Storage is outlined as the key supporting technology for solar, with around 31% of total demand covered by storage technologies. 95% of this is projected to come from short term storage provided by batteries, with power to gas conversion providing seasonal storage.
“There is no reason to invest one more dollar in fossil or nuclear power production,” exclaims EWG President Hans Josef. “All plans for a further expansion of coal, nuclear, gas and oil have to be ceased. More investments need to be channeled in renewable energies and the necessary infrastructure for storage and grids. Everything else will lead to unnecessary costs and increasing global warming.”
The report is based on an original model developed by Lappeenranta University of Technology, which calculates the most cost-effective mix of technologies based on available resources in 145 regions for a full reference year. The full study is published here.
Only time will tell whether this study’s recommendation will translate into reality. As lead author Christian Breyer sums up: “Energy transition is no longer a question of technical feasibility or economic viability, but of political will.”
Bonn, Germany, 10 Nov 2017 – Leaders from a wide range of sectors came together on Friday at Energy Day at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn to announce a new set of initiatives to transition to renewable energy and to show that more ambitious clean energy development can quickly become a bigger part of national climate plans submitted under the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
“With the price of renewable and storage technologies tumbling, and greater understanding on how to set the policy table for a cleaner energy mix and more integrated energy planning, the question before decision makers is, why wait?” said Rachel Kyte, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and CEO, Sustainable Energy for All.
Success stories, action and new commitments shared during Energy Day at the COP23 UN Climate Change Conference from businesses, states, cities and forward-thinking countries continue to show ambition to ensure the clean energy transition is not only underway but is irreversible.
“Our pledge to leave no one behind is a critical component of the Paris Agreement. The energy transition that we can see is underway and must be a transition towards energy systems around the world that secure sustainable energy for all,” said Ms Kyte.
“This means placing energy efficiency first, adopting a laser like focus on ending energy poverty and using the renewable energy revolution to achieve universal access and a bending of the emissions curve. With each year, each COP, the health and economic impacts of carbon pollution are better documented and the science of what awaits us, if we continue on our current path, mounts,” she said.
Adnan Z. Amin, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Director-General said: “Two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions stem from energy production and use, which puts the energy sector front and centre of global efforts to combat climate change. Our analysis shows that renewables and energy efficiency can together provide over 90 per cent of the mitigation needed in the energy system by 2050 to achieve the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, while also boosting the economy, creating jobs and improving human health and well-being.”
“We have a large, untapped, and affordable renewable energy potential waiting to be developed. Revising the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) gives countries an opportunity to take a fresh look at how to harvest this potential, not only for mitigation, but in light of the multiple socio-economic benefits of renewables, also for adaptation,” said Mr Amin.
Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director, said: “The transition of the energy sector in the next decades will be critical to meeting shared climate and sustainable development goals. Widespread action by governments and private sector alike has helped keep global energy-related emissions flat the last three years. Our analysis shows we can meet climate goals while achieving energy access and improving the environment.”
The central goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep the average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees. About one degree of that rise has already happened, underlining the urgency to progress much further and faster with the global clean energy transformation.
Energy Day is organized by The Climate Group, IEA, IRENA and Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) as part of a series of thematic action days held under the auspices of the Marrakech Partnership.
Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Last year’s increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years.
Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.
Scientists say this risks making global temperature targets largely unattainable.
This year’s greenhouse gas bulletin produced by the WMO, is based on measurements taken in 51 countries. Research stations dotted around the globe measure concentrations of warming gases including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
The figures published by the WMO are what’s left in the atmosphere after significant amounts are absorbed by the Earth’s “sinks”, which include the oceans and the biosphere.
2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from 400ppm in 2015.
“It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network,” Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO’s global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News.
“The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998 and it was 2.7ppm and now it is 3.3ppm, it is also 50% higher than the average of the last ten years.”
El Niño impacts the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by causing droughts that limit the uptake of CO2 by plants and trees.
Emissions from human sources have slowed down in the last couple of yearsaccording to research, but according to Dr Tarasova, it is the cumulative total in the atmosphere that really matters as CO2 stays aloft and active for centuries.
Over the past 70 years, says the report, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age.
Rapidly increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 and other gases have the potential, according to the study to “initiate unpredictable changes in the climate system… leading to severe ecological and economic disruptions.”
The study notes that since 1990 there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing, that’s the warming effect on our climate of all greenhouse gases.
“Geological-wise, it is like an injection of a huge amount of heat,” said Dr Tarasova.
“The changes will not take ten thousand years like they used to take before, they will happen fast – we don’t have the knowledge of the system in this state, that is a bit worrisome!”
According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene era. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.
Other experts in the field of atmospheric research agreed that the WMO findings were a cause for concern.
“The 3ppm CO2 growth rate in 2015 and 2016 is extreme – double the growth rate in the 1990-2000 decade,” Prof Euan Nisbet from Royal Holloway University of London told BBC News.
“It is urgent that we follow the Paris agreement and switch rapidly away from fossil fuels: there are signs this is beginning to happen, but so far the air is not yet recording the change.”
Another concern in the report is the continuing, mysterious rise of methane levels in the atmosphere, which were also larger than the average over the past ten years. Prof Nisbet says there is a fear of a vicious cycle, where methane drives up temperatures which in turn releases more methane from natural sources.
“The rapid increase in methane since 2007, especially in 2014, 2015, and 2016, is different. This was not expected in the Paris agreement. Methane growth is strongest in the tropics and sub-tropics. The carbon isotopes in the methane show that growth is not being driven by fossil fuels. We do not understand why methane is rising. It may be a climate change feedback. It is very worrying.”
The implications of these new atmospheric measurements for the targets agreed under the Paris climate pact, are quite negative, say observers.
“The numbers don’t lie. We are still emitting far too much and this needs to be reversed,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment.
“We have many of the solutions already to address this challenge. What we need now is global political will and a new sense of urgency.”
The report has been issued just a week ahead of the next instalment of UN climate talks, in Bonn. Despite the declaration by President Trump that he intends to take the US out of the deal, negotiators meeting in Germany will be aiming to advance and clarify the rulebook of the Paris agreement.
So … that was fast. US natural gas stakeholders barely had time to congratulate themselves for pushing coal out of the power generation market, and it looks like karma is already getting the last laugh. Low-cost renewable energy is beginning to nudge natural gas aside. In the most recent and striking development, California’s massive 262-megawatt Puente gas power plant proposal has been shelved, perhaps permanently.
One key element is consumer pushback. At first glance, the proposal doesn’t seem overly controversial. The proposed plan, a project of NRG Energy, does not involve constructing a new facility. It would have replaced two existing gas units at the company’s existing Mandalay power generation facility in Oxnard, California.
All things being equal, the proposal would provide at least some degree of environmental benefit, because the new units would use 80% less water for cooling than the existing ones.
However, criticism of the new gas project was intense. Penn sums it up: earlier this month, a two-member review committee of the California Energy Commission took the rare step of issuing a statement recommending that the full Commission reject the plans after receiving “hundreds of messages protesting the project as another potential pollution threat to a community already overwhelmed by electricity-generating plants.”
Aside from concerns about local air quality, Penn also cites an LA Times investigation indicating that the state’s energy policy has over-estimated the demand for natural gas power plants, resulting in artificially high rates:
“The commissioners’ recommendation followed Los Angeles Times investigations that showed the state has overbuilt the electricity system, primarily with natural gas plants, and has so much clean energy that it has to shut down some plants while paying other states to take the power California can’t use. The overbuilding has added billions of dollars to ratepayers’ bills in recent years.”
According to Penn, NRG officials maintain that older plant retirements by 2021 make replacement imperative to build up now.
At current costs, local ratepayers won’t get much relief if old power units are replaced with wind or solar.
Land use issues and environmental justice issues also come into play. NRG’s Mandalay power generation facility is located on the beach, and as NRG acknowledges, in 2014 the City of Oxnard enacted a moratorium on coastal development.
That complicates development plans within the power plant site, though NRG emphasizes that the final decision rests with state-level regulators.
Among those objecting to the plant from outside the local community is billionaire investor Tom Steyer, who co-authored an op-ed about the proposed facility raising the environmental justice issue:
“…in our state, not all beaches are created equal. That becomes painfully clear if you drive 50 miles north of Los Angeles to Oxnard, where the beaches have been seized by corporate polluters, marred by industrial waste and devastated by three fossil-fuel power plants that sit along the shoreline.
“Oxnard has more coastal power plants than any other city in the state, and not coincidentally, its population is predominantly Latino and low-income….”
Oxnard residents — and no doubt, real estate developers — are looking forward to transitioning coastal property out of industrial use altogether. Here’s LA Times reporter Dan Weikel on that topic:
“Many residents of this predominantly Latino city with a population of 205,000 say they are fed up with the degradation. Their growing dissatisfaction with the condition of large sections of beach has coalesced into an effort to deindustrialize and restore the shoreline of this city that is framed by Ventura and Camarillo and wraps around the town of Port Hueneme.”
The Puente project has been suspended, not canceled. However, chances of revival are slim. Although the most recent study affirms that renewable energy is a more expensive choice currently, Steyer points out that the redevelopment of Oxnard’s beachfront could be balanced out by new economic activity related to tourism and recreation.
That opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms, as waterfront development typically drives up the cost of housing, squeezing former residents to outer rims with longer commutes and fewer resources.
Sticking to the energy cost issue, the basic problem comes down to local energy vs. long distance transmission.
NRG makes the case that local energy generation is more reliable. That’s a fair assessment as a general principle, as the old model of centralized power plants falls out of favor. Local and on-site generation is becoming a consensus argument among energy experts, regardless of the power source.
On the other hand, the risk involved in transmitting electricity from remote wind farms and solar power plants could be offset by local storage sites, where the growing microgrid movement would come into play.
New tools for financing energy efficiency improvements could also help tamp down local energy demand and ease the way for a more interactive grid that enables consumers to tweak their electricity consumption to help prevent outages.
Cities like Oxnard can also tap into a growing renewable energy knowledge base that leverages local opportunities for renewable energy development and energy efficiency improvements.
Most of all, the Trump administration’s willy-nilly approach to oil and gas development — for example, a new proposal involving drilling along the Pacific coast — raises the stakes for citizens far outside of the communities dealing with local land use issues, leading to a groundswell of support for alternatives.
Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ) has got foreign backing for a prefeasibility study on the prospect of setting up another wind farm, but one that would be anchored out at sea.
An American outfit called Keystone Engineering Inc has been invited to do the study, which PCJ Group General Manager Winston Watson indicated should be finalised by around December 2018.
The study for the offshore wind farm is being financed by a grant from the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).
“Preliminary work should begin during the final quarter of 2017 and the study is scheduled to last for 12 months,” said Watson. “The results of the study will give an indication of the cost and viability of developing an offshore wind farm for Jamaica,” he told Gleaner Business.
The study is expected to evaluate the viability of installing the wind farm, which would represent one of the first offshore wind installations in Jamaica and the greater Caribbean region.
USTDA links US businesses to export opportunities by funding project-planning activities, pilot projects, and reverse trade missions. The US agency said in a release on the project that the development of the wind farm offers potential export opportunities for a range of American equipment and services related to the design, development, and operation of offshore wind power generation and transmission infrastructure.
Keystone is a Louisiana-based energy firm specialising in the engineering, design, procurement, project management and construction support for offshore wind and oil and gas platforms. The company was the foundation design-engineer for the first offshore wind farm installed in the United States, the 30 MW Block Island Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island, USTDA noted.
Watson told Gleaner Business that it was the US agency that approached the PCJ about overseeing the implementation of a grant-funded feasibility study on the prospective offshore wind farm.
He did not indicate the size of the grant, who would develop the facility, nor what the plans were beyond the study.
“At this point it is still too early to comment on the ownership or operational arrangements for any future projects that might be implemented as a result of the study,” the PCJ boss said.
The PCJ currently owns and operates the Wigton wind farm, based at Rose Hill in Manchester. The facility, first established in 2004 and expanded over time, now has generating capacity of nearly 63 MW. Wigton’s total output is now 164,775 MWh per year. It accounts for 6.2 per cent of installed capacity on the national power grid, and 3.7 per cent of Jamaica’s electricity generation
Wigton sells the electricity it generates to the Jamaica Public Service Company, operator of the national grid.
As for the offshore farm, Watson said it was possible the facility could feed both local energy needs and exports.
“It is anticipated that any facilities that may result will provide energy for domestic usage,” he added.
In the USTDA release, Watson was quoted as saying the study would “help the PCJ to get valuable data that can attract overseas investment for the development of our offshore wind resources”.
Despite a strong opposition campaign, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) handed co-petitioners Suniva and SolarWorld Americas a victory in their controversial Section 201 trade case on Friday.
All four designated commissioners voted affirmatively that crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and modules have been imported into the U.S. in such quantities that it caused, or threatened to cause, serious injury to the domestic CSPV manufacturing industry. The unanimous decision moves the ITC’s global safeguard investigation from the injury phase to the remedy phase, and the commission will ultimately make a remedy recommendation to President Donald Trump. If the ITC had voted against the petition, the case would have ended. Now, Trump will have the final say.
Suniva declares it is “gratified” by the ITC’s vote. “We brought this action because the U.S. solar manufacturing industry finds itself at the precipice of extinction at the hands of foreign market overcapacity,” the company says in a statement. “The ITC has agreed, and now it will be in President Trump’s hands to decide whether America will continue to have the capability to manufacture this energy source. President Trump can remedy this injury with relief that ensures U.S. energy dominance that includes a healthy U.S. solar ecosystem and prevents China and its proxies from owning the sun.”
In a separate release, Juergen Stein, CEO and president of SolarWorld Americas, says, “On behalf of the entire solar cell and panel manufacturing industry, we welcome this important step toward securing relief from a surge of imports that has idled and shuttered dozens of factories, leaving thousands of workers without jobs.”
Meanwhile, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), which led a massive campaign against the case, denounces the decision.
“The ITC’s decision is disappointing for nearly 9,000 U.S. solar companies and the 260,000 Americans they employ,” says Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of SEIA, in a release. “Foreign-owned companies that brought business failures on themselves are attempting to exploit American trade laws to gain a bailout for their bad investments. Analysts say Suniva’s remedy proposal will double the price of solar, destroy two-thirds of demand, erode billions of dollars in investment and unnecessarily force 88,000 Americans to lose their jobs in 2018.”
The Energy Trade Action Coalition (ETAC), a group of companies, associations and organizations that joined together in July to oppose the trade petition, has also spoken out against the ruling.
ETAC Spokesperson Paul Nathanson says, “Utilities, power co-ops, retailers, manufacturers and other large commercial users, along with conservative groups who have criticized federal solar subsidies, all agree that unwarranted tariffs would cause severe damage to the solar industry while setting a terrible precedent for future trade cases.”
The ITC officially launched its probe in May after Georgia-based bankrupt manufacturer Suniva filed a Section 201 petition, and facing troubles of its own, Oregon-based SolarWorld Americas later joined as a co-petitioner. The two companies have argued that Chinese-owned suppliers set up shop in other markets to successfully avoid U.S. tariffs and that a continued glut of cheap imports into the U.S. makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to compete. (Notably, SolarWorld has a German parent and Suniva is majority owned by a Chinese company, which itself opposed the Section 201 petition.)
The obscure Section 201 mechanism is unlike the previous SolarWorld-led U.S. trade actions against Chinese and Taiwanese solar imports. As the ITC explains in a fact sheet, “Global safeguard investigations do not require a finding of an unfair trade practice such as under the U.S. countervailing duty law (a foreign subsidy) or the antidumping duty law.”
Furthermore, the investigations “are not country specific,” meaning any new import tariffs or other remedy would be implemented on a global scale, rather than focus on CSPV products from a particular country. However, the fact sheet says the commissioners were “required to make additional separate findings for certain countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements.”
In fact, an ITC press release indicates that, of those free-trade agreement partners, the commission did not find injury on Friday with respect to CSPV imports from Canada and Singapore, as well as from Australia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Jordan, Panama and Peru. The commission did, however, make affirmative injury determinations for free-trade partners Mexico and Korea.
The ITC decision follows an hours-long hearing in August during which the co-petitioners, SEIA and other stakeholders testified. SEIA has rallied solar companies, legislators and other stakeholders against the petition ever since Suniva initiated the case, but in the lead-up to Friday’s vote, SolarWorld and Suniva garnered public support from a number of groups. In a recent analysis, the co-petitioners claimed the proposed trade actions would lead to at least 114,800 new jobs across all solar industry segments – a finding that contradicts an earlier SEIA analysis claiming that 88,000 U.S. solar jobs would be lost next year if the ITC imposes the trade protections.
In a statement, Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of The Solar Foundation, says, “This decision brings yet more uncertainty to an industry that has created real value for the United States.”
“Our National Solar Jobs Census finds the dramatic growth in U.S. solar employment over the past several years was driven by the sharply reduced cost of installations,” she states. “Any new tariffs are likely to increase costs and reduce demand for installations, disrupting the solar jobs market that now employs 260,000 workers in the United States and is valued in the tens of billions of dollars. The next update to our Solar Jobs Census will include more information and analysis on how this decision will impact American solar jobs.”
As mentioned, the ITC will now move forward to the remedy phase, which will include more stakeholder input and another hearing on Oct. 3. The commission will make its recommendation to Trump on Nov. 13, and the president will then have about two months to decide whether to adopt that recommendation or another remedy – if one at all.
However, it should be noted that Trump and his team have previously singled out Section 201 as a potential remedy for other trade issues and the president reportedly reiterated a call for tariffs recently.
In its petition, Suniva proposed an initial import tariff of $0.40/W per CSPV cell and a minimum import price of $0.78/W per CSPV module (which is inclusive of the $0.40/W cell tariff). Several analysts have said that would essentially double the current price of solar modules and make those imported into the U.S. the most expensive in the world.
Although SolarWorld did not propose its own remedy after joining the petition, Tim Brightbill, the company’s trade counsel and partner at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C., recently verified during an interview at the Solar Power International trade show, “We support Suniva’s remedy proposal.”
Nonetheless, SolarWorld’s Stein says in his Friday statement, “In the remedy phase of the process, we will strive to help fashion a remedy that will put the U.S. industry as a whole back on a growth path. We will continue to invite the Solar Energy Industries Association and our industry partners to work on good solutions for the entire industry. It is time for the industry to come together to strengthen American solar manufacturing for the long term.”
SEIA’s Hopper says, “While we continue to believe that this is the wrong decision, based on Suniva and SolarWorld’s mismanagement, we respect the commission’s vote and we will continue to lead the effort to protect the solar industry from damaging trade relief. We expect to be front and center in the ITC remedy process and in the administration’s consideration of this deeply flawed case.
“As the remedy phase moves forward, I am determined to reach a conclusion that will protect the solar industry, our workers and the American public from what amounts to a shakedown by these two companies,” she continues. “An improper remedy will devastate the burgeoning American solar economy and ultimately harm America’s manufacturers and 36,000 people currently engaged in solar manufacturing that don’t make cells and panels.”
ETAC’s Nathanson adds, “ETAC will continue to fight vigorously during the remedy phase, encouraging administration officials and members of Congress to help ensure that no remedies are imposed that would threaten the solar industry’s ability to compete with other energy sources.”
In an emailed statement, Tony Clifford, chief development officer of Maryland-based solar provider Standard Solar, says, “Anyone closely involved with watching how this trade petition wended its way through the U.S. International Trade Commission process always had a sneaking suspicion the final decision would end up with President Donald J. Trump. The ITC did its due diligence and, after much deliberation, decided these two foreign-owned module makers were indeed harmed by module imports from other countries – but fortunately, today’s decision is only the beginning, not the ending, of the story.”
Clifford adds, “Now the ITC begins its deliberations about what remedies should be imposed on imports, and this will be where the real effects on the industry will be determined. I hope the ITC will conclude only minimal or no tariff increases are necessary. Otherwise, the U.S. solar industry could lose 88,000 or more jobs. I’d also remind President Trump that two-thirds of the solar jobs in America do not require any college education. Losing 88,000 jobs, most of which are blue collar, is a lot for the American economy – and President Trump’s base in particular – to absorb.”
An Associated Press report cites White House spokesperson Natalie Strom as saying Trump “will examine the facts and make a determination that reflects the best interests of the United States. The U.S. solar manufacturing sector contributes to our energy security and economic prosperity.”
Morten A. Lund, a partner at Stoel Rives and chair of the law firm’s Solar Energy Initiative, says, “The president will have significant discretion in whether to move forward with any remedy recommended by the United States International Trade Commission, including the discretion to modify the recommended remedy. He will probably decide with advice from the United States Trade Representative and advisors.
“With a 4-0 vote, it seems likely that the president will impose a remedy or risk backlash from ignoring a unanimous vote of injury from the USITC, the country’s trade watchdog,” Lund continues. “The remedy hearing and process will tell us a lot about how much the commission will consider the impact on the greater solar industry or energy sector in fashioning a remedy. The president has shown a strong protectionist leaning in trade matters, particularly with regard to China, and is known to favor tariffs generally. That would tend to support an expectation that he will implement a remedy.”
According to the ITC fact sheet, a Section 201 remedy is “temporary,” and “the initial period of relief cannot be longer than four years.” The fact sheet adds, “If extended, the effective period of relief cannot exceed eight years in the aggregate.”
From rolling back plastic bottle bans in national parks to dismantling the U.S. climate change advisory board, the Trump administration continues its assault on the environment. We must work together to help ensure a brighter future for our generation and generations to come. Never forget that every individual action matters, no matter how small.
Below is a collection of actions you can take right now to help combat the climate crisis. We also urge you to invite your friends to join the “Fight the Flood” action center where they can sign up themselves and explore more ways to make a difference.
Action 1: Pledge to reduce your household energy waste this year
Energy is wasted at almost every point of its generation, transmission and use — from extracting fossil fuels to using inefficient appliances. All this wasted energy takes a toll on our climate, water and wildlife. Fortunately there are many ways to reduce energy waste, both by making shifts in your lifestyle and by pressuring your legislators to create better energy policy. Pledge to fight energy waste and make a difference on climate change.
Action 2: Tell President Trump: Appalachian communities are at risk
Mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed more than 500 mountains and buried more than 2,000 miles of streams in Appalachia. Yet, despite a growing movement of Appalachians and more than 100,000 concerned Americans rallying to end the destruction, it’s still happening. Add your voice to the movement demanding the Trump administration takes action to stop mountaintop removal.
Action 3: Unmask your city to help combat air pollution
Air pollution presents serious risks to public health. More than 80% of people living in urban areas where air quality is monitored are exposed to air pollution levels that exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) safety limits, increasing the risk of heart disease, lung cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke. Today health practitioners are coming together to raise the importance of safe, clean air for their patients and for the climate. Find your city here and contact your representatives to get involved.
Be a climate warrior!