Download transitioning to a green economy

1
TRANSITIONING TO A
GREEN ECONOMY
HANS MARTIN
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS & THE POLICY PROCESS
UMASS DARTMOUTH
DECEMBER 5, 2014
TRANSITIONG TO A GREEN ECONOMY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction
II.
Key Legislation
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
IV. Theoretical Approaches
V. Alternative Policies
VI. Conclusion and Interesting Findings
2
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
A. Industrial Revolution and Population Growth
1.
Industrial Revolution, beginning around 1750, led to tremendous
economic progress, greatly improving standards of living for millions
of people and lifting them out of poverty.
2.
Use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) provided the energy
making the economic boom possible, powering factories and
transportation systems and providing electricity for industrial,
commercial, and residential uses, resulting in a tremendous
increase in production and efficiency.
3.
World population exploded from around 1 billion in 1820 to 7.2
billion today.
3
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
B. Unsustainable Environmental Pressures on Earth’s Systems
1.
This tremendous economic prosperity, combined with population
growth, have placed an enormous strain on Earth’s environment,
which is not sustainable.
2.
Continued economic growth, particularly by developing countries,
and continued population growth, expected to reach 9 billion
people by 2050, will require ever greater amounts of energy, land,
and natural resources, further straining Earth’s systems.
3.
Energy and agricultural sectors, in particular, are having a
profoundly dangerous affect on Earth’s environment and systems.
4
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
C. Energy and its Pressures on Earth’s Systems
1.
Our burning of fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases (GHG), including
carbon dioxide, causing global warming, climate change, and
ocean acidification, severely threatening and damaging coral
reefs and marine life.
2.
Global warming, and the resulting climate change, is causing more
extreme storms, flooding, glacier and ice melt, and sea level rise,
threatening populations living in coastal regions and in small island
countries, causing loss of life, property, and livelihoods.
3.
Global warming and climate change is causing more severe
droughts, resulting in decreased agricultural production, food
insecurity, and rising food prices in different parts of the world.
5
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
C. Energy and its Pressures on Earth’s Systems
The 2 Degree Limit
4.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere have
increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) prior to the Industrial
Revolution to 400 ppm today, causing the Earth to warm by .8˚ Celsius
since the Industrial Revolution. Earth will continue to warm by another
.6˚ C even if CO2 emissions were immediately stopped today.
5.
In 2009, at the Conference of Parties in Copenhagen, the world
community agreed to a goal of preventing Earth’s temperature from
rising more than 2˚ C, in order to prevent the worst consequences of
global warming and climate change (the 2˚ limit). If this goal is to be
met, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere cannot be allowed
to exceed 450 ppm.
6
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
C. Energy and its Pressures on Earth’s Systems
The U.S.’ Disproportionate Responsibility
6.
The U.S. has been responsible for 26 percent of the world’s
cumulative GHG emissions from 1751 to 2012.
7.
Americans use far more energy per capita than any other country,
currently accounting for more than 20 percent of all of the world’s
energy use, and over 15 percent of CO2 emissions, despite having
less than 5 percent of its population.
7
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
D. Agriculture and its Pressures on Earth’s Systems
1.
Our agricultural processes are threatening Earth’s natural systems.
2.
Deforestation for agricultural purposes has caused loss of habitat,
biodiversity loss, and contributed to global warming.
3.
Our use of nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizers have greatly
increased our agricultural yield with which to feed the world’s
population, but has caused negative consequences to Earth’s natural
nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and the runoff has polluted Earth’s
waterways, further threatening sea life.
4.
Our use of pesticides and herbicides have also increased agricultural
yields, but have poisoned soils and environment, negatively affecting
biodiversity.
8
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
D. Agriculture and its Pressures on Earth’s Systems
5.
We are depleting much of Earth’s available groundwater for irrigation
faster than it can be replaced through rain and Earth’s natural
hydrological cycles.
6.
In addition to deforestation, food transport and livestock digestive
processes produce GHG emissions, contributing to global warming
and climate change.
7.
All of these activities are causing Earth to undergo its sixth great
extinction, this one being the result of man’s activities.
9
Transitioning To A Green Economy
I. Introduction
E.
The Policy Problem
1.
If we continue to maintain the status quo, global warming, climate
change, and environmental degradation, and all of their negative
consequences, will continue to worsen.
2.
As a result, the world community must transition to a green economy by
decoupling economic growth from human-caused environmental
damage.
3.
The U.S. has a special moral obligation to do its part, as a member of the
world community, to transition to a green economy, given its
disproportionate contribution to the problem.
4.
The problem is determining how this transition can be accomplished in
time to avoid catastrophic consequences, given our long entrenched
reliance on fossil fuels, the powerful fossil fuel industry, the political and
cultural dynamics present in the U.S., and the technological challenges,
and in a way that provides economic opportunities for lower income
households, in light of the great inequality in the U.S.
10
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
There are numerous pieces of environmental legislation that could impact a
transition to a green economy. Given its increasing importance in combatting
climate change, this presentation will focus on the Clean Air Act, and the
associated policy process for which it has been used to combat climate change.
A.
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
1.
For several decades, climate scientists have identified climate change as a
growing problem. However, throughout most of its history, from 1970 to 2000, the
CAA was used as a tool to control non-GHG pollutants. During the George W.
Bush and Obama Presidencies, regulations under the CAA to combat climate
change began to be contemplated.
2.
Despite increased public awareness and increased advocacy, President Bush
refused to address climate change, instead focusing on other policy matters.
Several states and environmental groups, having failed to get climate change
on the national agenda, sued Bush’s EPA to compel it to regulate CO2 and
other GHG as pollutants.
11
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
A. The Clean Air Act (CAA)
3.
In 2007, the Supreme Court found that GHG fit into the CAA’s definition of
a pollutant, and it ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate GHG
emissions on vehicles. This decision was a major victory by climate change
activists, and paved the way for legitimization of future carbon emissions
regulations from the Obama Administration.
4. Despite the financial crisis, the recession, and other crises and
competing priorities, President Obama has repeatedly tried to
keep climate change on the national agenda, using natural
disasters and economic reports detailing the costs of inaction.
These efforts have been met with stiff resistance from the fossil
industry, their Congressional allies, and grassroots conservatives.
12
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
A. The Clean Air Act (CAA)
5.
In 2011, President Obama’s EPA forged an agreement with numerous
automobile manufacturers requiring them to raise the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards for cars and light-duty trucks to 54.5 MPG
by model year 2025. The Supreme Court decision on the CAA undoubtedly
brought the automobile manufacturers to the negotiating table with the
EPA, knowing that they could now be regulated by the EPA for their GHG
emissions.
6.
President Obama’s EPA is continuing to use the CAA to regulate GHG
emissions, proposing new rules in 2013 and 2014 for new and existing power
plants, which are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S.
The proposed rules would, by 2030, cut carbon emissions from the power
sector by 30% below 2005 levels. The EPA rule on existing power plants will
be finalized in June 2015.
13
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
A. The Clean Air Act (CAA)
7.
After finalization, the EPA rules will be implemented by a state-federal
partnership, whereby the states are to design their own programs to meet
certain state-specific goals. The state plans are due by June 2016.
8.
The EPA’s rules will likely have to survive court challenges before becoming
fully legitimized.
9.
The CAA has been used only recently to regulate GHG emissions, and it is
too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy actions taken under
the CAA.
14
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
B.
Other Recent Legislation Impacting a Transition to a Green Economy
1.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law by
President Bush on December 19, 2007, to promote energy independence.
The law promotes increased development and use of renewable fuels,
increased efficiency in buildings and products, increased CAFÉ standards
for automobiles, improved energy efficiencies in the Federal Government,
and research and development in carbon capture and storage (CCS).
President Bush had previously sought greater energy independence
through exploration of oil and gas reserves in areas such as the Artic
National Wildlife Refuge, but those efforts were repeatedly defeated in
Congress.
15
Transitioning To A Green Economy
II. Key Legislation
B.
Other Recent Legislation Impacting a Transition to a Green Economy
2.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed the House of
Representatives in 2009, but never passed the Senate. The bill included
provisions for a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions,
increase energy efficiency, and promote the development of alternative
energy sources. The bill was an early attempt by the Obama
Administration to address climate change.
3.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus
Package) was signed into law by President Obama in 2009 in response to
the recession. The law provided for green stimulus spending of
approximately $50 billion which was used for energy from wind and solar,
weatherizing homes, restoring land, high speed rail, and smart meters.
16
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
A. Official Actors
1.
President and Executive Branch Administrative Agencies

President Bush resisted strategies to combat climate change, instead
focusing his energy policy on energy independence through energy
conservation and oil exploration and development.

President Obama has tried to keep climate change on the national
agenda, supporting cap and trade legislation early in his Administration,
and using the EPA to implement his climate change strategies, first with
the fuel efficiency agreement with automobile manufacturers, and
secondly by the issuance of rules regulating carbon emissions of power
plants. President Obama recently entered into a climate agreement
with China to reduce GHG emissions, and will be seeking a climate
agreement with the world community at COP 21 in Paris in 2015.
17
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
A.
Official Actors
2.
Congress

In 1992, the Senate ratified the first climate change agreement, the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

In 1997, the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would
have bound the U.S. to certain emission standards.

Refused to allow oil exploration and development of the ANWR region,
as President Bush desired.

In 2009, the Senate refused to pass cap and trade legislation to regulate
carbon emissions.

Given the political makeup of the next Senate due to take office in
January, they will undoubtedly refuse to ratify a climate treaty in 2015.
18
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
A.
3.
Official Actors
The Courts

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate GHG emissions
under the CAA, which has allowed the President Obama’s EPA to
proceed with rules regulating GHG emissions.

Undoubtedly, the courts will be used to challenge these new EPA rules
by those who oppose them. Therefore, until such time as new legislation
is passed, the courts will be the decisive official actor in determining
whether or not President Obama’s most significant climate change
initiatives have a chance to be successful.
19
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
B.
Unofficial Actors
1.
Political parties (e.g. Republican and Democratic Parties)
2.
Alternative energy companies and their trade associations, such as
the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy
Industries Association.
3.
Environmental groups and think tanks, which promote climate
change and sustainable development strategies, such as the
National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense
Fund, 350.org, World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, the
Nature Conservancy, Center for American Progress, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. Many
environmental groups and states sued President Bush’s EPA for
failure to regulate carbon emissions under the CAA.
20
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
B.
Unofficial Actors
4.
Oil, gas, and coal companies, their wealthy principals, as well as
their trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute,
the National Mining Association, the American Coal Council, and
the American Gas Association, which have fought against GHG
regulations. Some of these actors have funded front groups
promoting climate change denial and libertarian policies, which
undermine government intervention and regulation.
5.
The conservative media, led by Rupert Murdoch, has seemingly
pursued a public relations strategy aimed at convincing the public
that government is inefficient and ineffective and should not tax or
regulate business, the economic engines and job creators of our
economy, thereby undermining efforts to combat climate change.
21
Transitioning To A Green Economy
III. Official and Unofficial Actors
B.
Unofficial Actors
6. The pivotal group amongst all of these unofficial actors may be the
big non-energy corporations and their trade associations, such as
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, and others. Publicly, thus
far, most of these organizations have refused to back specific
action aimed at curbing GHG emissions, because they believe any
such action should be international in scope and should not harm
the economy. However, they may begin to support climate action
if they determine that it is economically beneficial for them to
transition to renewable energies, either due to energy savings or
due to the costs of climate change’s negative consequences.
22
Transitioning To A Green Economy
IV. Theoretical Approaches
Elite Model versus Public Choice Model
A.
Elite Theory Overview
1.
A few elites from the upper socioeconomic class shape public opinion
on policy matters more so than the masses, who are apathetic and ill
informed.
2.
Elites establish public policy, which flows downward and influences the
masses, rather than from the masses upward. Pubic officials and
administrators carry out the will of the elites.
3.
Elites seek to preserve this system by valuing private property, limited
government, and individual liberty. Therefore, changes in public policy
tend to be incremental.
23
Transitioning To A Green Economy
IV. Theoretical Approaches
Elite Model versus Public Choice Model
B.
The Elite’s Influence on Energy/Climate Change Policy
1.
Energy policy in the U.S. has been dominated by the oil, gas, and coal
industries, and the wealthy, powerful, and influential elites associated with
these businesses.
2.
Our nearly complete reliance on fossil fuels for so long have caused these
industries to become so entrenched into the fabric of our economy, giving the
elites in these industries unprecedented power and influence in our political
system.
3.
These elites, with their money, power, and influence, have largely controlled
the national political agenda on energy, rarely allowing any significant
changes that could threaten their privileged position. In 1992, the world
community entered into UNFCCC to address climate change, but in the over
20 years since then, the fossil fuel elites have defeated any serious attempt to
curb their GHG emissions, recent pending EPA rules aside.
24
Transitioning To A Green Economy
IV. Theoretical Approaches
Elite Model versus Public Choice Model
B.
The Elite’s Influence on Energy/Climate Change Policy
4.
In 1997, the U.S. Senate did the bidding of the fossil fuel elites, refusing to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol, which would have required the U.S. to curb its GHG emissions.
5.
In 2009 and 2010, the fossil fuel elites used their influence to block Senate passage of
the cap and trade bill that had passed the House.
6.
The elite’s funding of a vast network of groups, which promote denial of humancaused climate change, opposition of regulations to curb emissions, and libertarian
and limited government policies, all of which strike a chord with their large grassroots
base, will make significant policy change extraordinarily difficult.
7.
Ratification of any international climate agreement in 2015 will, in all likelihood, be
impossible given their influence with the Republican controlled Congress.
25
Transitioning To A Green Economy
IV. Theoretical Approaches
Elite Model versus Public Choice Model
C.
Public Choice Theory Overview
1.
Argues that individuals coalesce together in politics, reaching an
agreement for their mutual benefit and enhanced well being.
2.
Individuals act collectively through government for a common good.
3.
Recognizes that there are certain market failures, such as externalities,
which the government must remedy.
4.
Politicians adopt policy positions to win elections(i.e. attracting the most
votes), rather than winning elections to formulate policy.
26
Transitioning To A Green Economy
IV. Theoretical Approaches
Elite Model versus Public Choice Model
C.
Public Choice and its Influence on Energy/Climate Change Policy
1.
There is a growing movement among the masses, placing increasing pressure on political leaders
to address climate change. In September, hundreds of environmental and activists groups,
consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals, marched in New York City and around the
world demanding action on the part of their political leaders.
2.
This movement, if better organized, could potentially wrestle some of the power and influence
from the elites. It could spur a green cultural revolution by undertaking a massive public relations
campaign aimed at the following:

Support and investment in renewable and sustainable companies.

Divestiture of fossil fuel companies and a boycott of companies which operate in
unsustainable ways.

Encouragement of individuals and corporations to take responsibility for reducing their own
carbon footprints.

Boycotting of tourism in those states with the worst records on carbon emissions and
sustainability.

Making climate change the number one issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign.
27
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE A: MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO
1.
Despite the UNFCC, the global annual GHG emissions rate has
increased by an average of 2.2% from 2000 to 2010. Maintaining
the status quo could result in a rise of Earth’s temperature of 4˚ to 9˚
C by the end of the century.
2.
The greater our GHG emissions, the greater amount of global
warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and frequency and
intensity of extreme weather.
3.
An increase of “only” 2˚ C would result in sea level rise of .3 to .8
meter by 2100 and would continue to rise by 1.5 to 4.0 meters by
2300.
28
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE A: MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO
4.
5.
Global warming of 4˚ C would cause a severe and irreversible impact,
threatening economic growth and man’s ability to adapt.

Sea levels would rise by .5 to 1.0 meter by 2100, and would continue to rise by several
meters in the coming centuries, resulting in coastal flooding and affecting a very
significant percentage of the world’s population.

Oceans would acidify by over 150%, causing severe negative consequences to ocean
ecosystems, coral reefs, and marine species.

There would be severe heat waves, droughts, and floods. Summers would be very hot
making it difficult to grow crops.
North America, as a region, is at a medium level of risk for water shortage,
water pollution, air pollution, and biodiversity loss. In the U.S., maintaining the
status quo in agriculture will result in ever increasing amounts of climate
change, water shortages, water and air pollution, and biodiversity loss. Other
parts of the world would experience even greater catrostrophic changes.
29
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Overview
Alternative B provides a rod map of how the U.S. can transition to a green
economy by 2050. It incorporates the following 5 components:
1.
President Obama’s short and medium term plan addressing climate
change.
2.
A long term climate change plan from the Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN).
3.
A Martin Think Tank plan promoting compromise strategies amongst the
fossil fuel industry, alternative energy industries, and the government.
4.
Plans to promote economic opportunity for low income Americans
during the transition to a green economy.
5.
A sustainable agricultural plan.
30
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Component 1: Short and Medium Term Plan – President Obama’s Climate Action Plan
a)
Reduces GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
b)
New EPA rules for power plants will cut carbon emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.
c)
Doubles the country’s use of renewable energy by 2020 through the issuance of permits on public lands.
d)
Increases funding for long-term clean energy innovation, including for biofuels, nuclear, clean coal, and carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS).
e)
Established a goal for federal government to derive 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
f)
Development of post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy duty vehicles, to go along with the CAFÉ
standards of 54.5 mpg for automobiles by 2025.
g)
Doubles energy efficiency by 2030 relative to 2010 levels.
h)
Aims to preserve the role of forests in mitigating climate change, which remove nearly 12% of total GHG
emissions per year.
i)
Climate deal with China committed the U.S. to reducing its GHG emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by
2025.
31
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Component 2: Long Term Plan - Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)
a)
Reduces emissions by 80% by 2050, consistent with the 2˚ C limit, taking into account increases in population and
economic growth.
b)
Due to the uncertainties inherent in a long term plan, the SDSN plan consists of a main case plan, as well as 3
alternatives, that differently emphasize the use of renewables, CCS, or nuclear power.
c)
The main plan, as well as the alternatives, incorporate the same energy efficiency strategies. Despite a projected
doubling of economic growth from 2010 to 2050, total final energy use would be reduced by over 30%, resulting in
a 74% reduction in energy intensity.
d)
All of the SDSN plans eliminate use of coal without CCS and reduce petroleum use by 90% (use of electric cars) .
e)
Under the main SDSN plan, there would be a gradual shift in the mix of energy sources, resulting in an energy mix in
2050 of: 40% renewables, 30% nuclear, 30% fossil fuels with CCS.
f)
Under the high renewables SDSN plan, an assumption was made that CCS technology was not sufficiently
developed or cost effective. The energy mix under this plan in 2050 would be: 75% renewables, 20% nuclear, 5%
natural gas.
g)
Under the high CCS plan, the energy mix would be: 50% natural gas with CCS, 15% nuclear, 35% renewables.
h)
Under the high nuclear plan, the energy mix would be: 60% nuclear, 35% renewables, 5% natural gas.
32
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Component 3: Compromise Strategies – Martin Think Tank Plan
President Obama’s short and medium term plan are vulnerable to reversal by another President. Additionally, the long term SDSN
plan will require public support not currently present, over the course of many decades. Therefore, this component provides for a
compromise strategy amongst the different parties. The Martin Think Tank Plan (MTTP) includes several elements, but the core
element is described below.
Formation of a consortium amongst the fossil fuel industries, alternative energy companies, and the government, to determine
the maximum pace at which fossil fuels can be scaled down and alternative energy capacity scaled up, in such a way that
meets energy demands.

Fossil fuel companies would gradually cut production and government would pay them for their lost profits through tax
cuts or other reimbursements. Alternative energy companies would also be required to pay a portion of their profits to
the fossil fuel companies, thereby gradually decreasing government expenditures as alternative energy scales up. Lost
profits could be guaranteed for a certain number of years (e.g. 50 years). The plan would include a job training and
placement program for workers losing their jobs as the fossil fuel industry contracts.

The large government expenditures required would be offset by cuts to social programs, such as those proposed by the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, which was supported by many Democrats, and could possibly obtain greater support
amongst Democrats given their greater concern for climate change than the national debt. Although this would
constitute a massive government intervention in the free market, Republicans may support this plan, because it is budget
neutral and shrinks the size of government over the very long term. The fossil fuel companies, if under pressure from nonofficial actors (Public Choice Theory), may seriously consider this option, not knowing how future regulations and the long
term energy environment will affect them. If they decide to go along with the plan, Republicans will follow.
Implementation of this core element, as well as others included in the MTTP, would fully commit the country both substantively
and culturally to a green economy.
33
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Component 4: Economic Opportunities for Lower Income Americans
a)
A transition to alternative energies such as Alternative B proposes would create 4.2 million jobs and result
in a net increase of 2.7 million jobs taking into account the loss of jobs in the fossil fuel industry.
b)
Potential for green job growth more broadly in a green economy is immense. It includes construction
and professional jobs to make buildings more energy efficient, green automobile manufacturing jobs,
mass transit jobs, recycling jobs, re-manufacturing jobs from scrap materials, afforestation and
reforestation.
c)

Requires significant and sustained investment in the private and public sector and increased education, training, and skill
development programs in a wide array of occupations.

The green economy will offer better paying opportunities than the economy as a whole for low and middle skilled
workers with little formal education. Median wages within this segment are 13% higher than the national average.
The price of photovoltaic solar installations has fallen resulting in rapid solar expansion for middle and
upper income households, but not for low income households. Low-income households spend a greater
percentage of their income on energy costs, and access to solar power could significantly reduce their
energy costs below utility rates. However, many are unqualified for credit, ineligible for tax credits, and
are tenants, making access to solar power difficult. Therefore, state and local governments should
establish programs to help lower income households gain access to solar power, as is being done in the
states of California, Louisiana, and Colorado.
34
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Component 5: Sustainable Agriculture
The agriculture sector must also transition to a green economy so that rising food yields, which will be needed for a
growing population, are decoupled from unsustainable use of water, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and land. This
can be done by implementation of the following agricultural practices:
a)
Use of precision farming so that precise amounts of fertilizers can be applied, in the places and in amounts
where needed, to reduce runoff in waterways and the atmosphere. This involves increased use of information
technology, including detailed mapping of soil types and global positioning systems, to ascertain the soil health
in particular areas of farms.
b)
Use of no-till farming which increases: water efficiency by increased water infiltration into the soil, retention of
organic matter, and nutrient cycling in the soil. This practice reduces soil erosion, improves soil quality, and
sequesters carbon and nitrous oxide in the soil, thereby preventing additional GHG emissions.
c)
Development of drought resistant seed varieties.
d)
Improved water efficiency so that “more crop per drop” is obtained.
e)
Better harvesting, storage, and transport of crops to avoid large losses due to pests, rodents, rotting, and
exposure to natural elements.
f)
Healthy food types should be subsidized, rather than feed grains that support over consumption of beef.
35
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
ALTERNATIVE B: ENVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Feasibility of Alternative B – Politics, Technology, and Cost
a)
The biggest challenge in implementing Alternative B is politics. The elites in the fossil fuel industry have a great
amount of influence with our politicians, making long term regulations of GHG emissions uncertain. The MTTP
provides an unconventional path forward through political compromise that may or may not be feasible, but it at
least provides a starting point for discussion which should be considered.
b)
The second biggest challenge to this Alternative is technology. Meeting the 2˚ C limit is dependent upon the
development of technologies which can be deployed at large scales and which are not cost prohibitive. Many of
the technologies needed to transition to a green economy are already available and are being deployed at
increasing scales (e.g. energy efficient technology, wind and solar renewables, electric cars). Other technologies
are not sufficiently mature to deploy at large scales or are cost prohibitive. These include technologies to store the
energy from wind and solar so it can be later used during intermittent periods. They also include CCS, advanced
nuclear reactors, lengthening the range of electric vehicles for large scale deployment, and development of liquid
biofuels. The SDSN component provides for flexibility in the mix of the different energy types used, due to the
inherent long term uncertainties with respect to the pace of technological advances, market forces, and politics.
Due to these uncertainties, each technology option should be vigorously pursued to see which becomes the most
feasible over time.
c)
The actual costs of transitioning to a green economy are relatively low, especially when compared to the long
term costs caused by climate change if the status quo continues. The first 2 components of this Alternative will cost
about $200 billion annually from both public and private sources, or about 1.2% of current U.S. GDP. The cost of
energy efficiency investments would be recouped in 3 years, after which net positive gains would ensue. Most
renewable sources of energy will be cost competitive by 2017. In contrast, global warming of 3˚ C would result in
$150 billion of economic damages every year into perpetuity.
36
Transitioning To A Green Economy
V. Alternative Policies
Recommendation

This presentation recommends that the policy proposed in Alternative B be
implemented and that the country transition to an environmentally sustainable
and green economy.

To many supporters of sustainable development, having to make a choice
between these two alternatives may seem almost laughable, like a debate
among the round earth and flat earth societies. The problem though is that the
flat earth society in this case is presently the more powerful.

Although maintaining the status quo may sound irrational to many, it is not
irrational to the powerful fossil fuel industry and their base of climate denier
supporters. Their influence with politicians, who are largely interested in the very
short term, versus the very long term nature of this problem, will make
implementation of Alternative B extremely difficult. The policy choice of
inaction and maintaining the status quo is a distinct possibility, unless the masses
create their own green cultural revolution, and force their political leaders to
take action.
37
Transitioning To A Green Economy
VI. Conclusion and Interesting Findings

In summary, our use of fossil fuels has provided the energy for tremendous economic
growth, improving the economic prosperity of millions. However, this economic
growth, combined with population growth, have placed an enormous strain on
Earth’s environment, causing global warming, climate change, and ocean
acidification, along with all of its negative consequences – sea level rise, more
frequent and severe weather, floods, droughts, and loss of marine biodiversity.

Similarly, our agricultural processes used to feed a world population of 7.2 billion and
growing, has also caused a tremendous strain on Earth’s environment. Deforestation
and our use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, have caused global warming,
loss of habitat, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, polluted waters which threaten sea
life, and interfered with nature’s nitrogen and phosphorous cycles.

The problem lies in determining how to transition to a green economy fast enough,
before the worst consequences materialize, given our entrenched reliance on fossil
fuels, the powerful and influential fossil fuel industry, the political dynamics present in
our country, as well as the technological challenges.

The fossil fuel industry elites, along with their allies in Congress and their grassroots
climate-denier supporters, have thwarted legislative attempts to curb GHG emissions.
Recently, however, President Obama’s EPA has used the CAA to begin curbing GHG
emissions.
38
Transitioning To A Green Economy
VI. Conclusion and Interesting Findings

We can either maintain the status quo and bring upon ourselves,
and all living things, all of its negative consequences, or we can
transition to a green economy that promotes economic growth in a
sustainable manner.

Alternative B provides a long term plan to transition to a green
economy. It includes various options in the mix of energy types,
depending on which becomes the most feasible. Alternative B also
includes a compromise strategy, opportunities for low-income
households, and strategies for sustainable agriculture.

This presentation recommends implementation of Alternative B, but
its success will depend upon the masses creating a green cultural
revolution to overpower the elites and to pressure our political
leaders to make the changes necessary to transition to a green
economy.
39
Transitioning To A Green Economy
VI. Conclusion and Interesting Findings

Some of the more interesting things that I learned in this study included the following:

The impact that agriculture has on environmental degradation. One species, man, uses 40%
of Earth’s land surface for himself, using all but the least inhabitable land. Most of man’s land
use is for agriculture, which has caused severe loss of habitat and biodiversity loss.

70% of the agricultural land is used to support livestock. It takes 10 to 15 kilograms of grain to
produce 1 kilogram of beef.

Most of man’s water use, 70%, is for agricultural purposes, and is causing water scarcity.

The different theoretical public policy approaches – in this case, the power, wealth, and
influence of the fossil fuel elites (Elite Theory) versus the potential revolutionizing power of the
masses (Public Choice Theory). I do believe that the masses have the power to pressure our
politicians into action, and that they can revolutionize a cultural change which transitions our
country to a green economy. In so doing, they will have finally prevailed over the fossil fuel
elites.

The role that the courts have played in legitimizing policy. The CAA was originally passed
with little, if any, contemplation of GHG. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could
regulate GHG under the CAA, giving President Obama’s EPA the authority to issue
regulations of GHG emissions.
40