Wikipedia

User:Hfrankl/sandbox

< User:Hfrankl

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE - TRYING TO MOVE BACK TO USER SANDBOX

SEE ~~POLISHED~~ ARTICLE BELOW:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HANNAH'S PART:

Economic Environmental Justice For Households

The economic impact of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), not including the impact on employment, can be measured by a multitude of variables including its impact on electricity prices and health expenditures. In four major studies conducted on the economic impact of the CPP, findings varied widely due to the assumptions made and the variables analyzed.  Ultimately, the effect of the CPP on households is most influenced by how states decide to meet their emissions goals, allocate the revenue generated by the carbon tax, and collaborate with other states. [1][2]

Data on the economic impact of the Clean Power Plan on electricity prices relies heavily on four prominent studies conducted separately by Synapse Energy Economics, M.J. Bradley & Associates, NERA Economic Consulting, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Synapse Energy Economics relied on assumptions from a 2012 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study on future potential of energy and reported findings indicating that the CPP will decrease the cost of electricity. M.J. Bradley & Associates rely on data from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and reported generally optimistic findings, with large decreased in costs due to the CPP. NERA Economic Consulting, funded by coal lobbyists,[3] relied on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data with pessimistic assumptions, resulting in pessimistic findings stating that some states may even face double-digit price increases. [4] The EPA drew from the NREL for data and made middle-ground assumptions, ultimately reporting findings that are similarly "middle-ground" compared with other studies. The ability to measure and determine the impact on at-risk communities is confounded by these varying conclusions. [5]

Differences between states aside, three key at-risk groups are low-income communities, high-income communities, and coal miner communities. Low-income households may disproportionately experience increases in expenditures due to a large share of their consumption falling into the energy-intensive category. Conversely, low-income communities are likely to benefit from increased air quality, and therefore decreased healt care expenditures. In order to combat any negative impact of the CPP, states may choose to allocate roughly 10% of their carbon pricing revenue to protect low-income communities. High-income communities may be disproportionately affected by the CPP because of decreased income levels, due to greater dependence on capital income, rather than wages. Coal miners, making up 0.057% of the total U.S. employment, may be disproportionately affected by the CPP due to potential layoffs in the coal industry. In contract, coal miners disproportionately benefit from increased clean air and decreased health expenditures. Just one to five percent of the revenue generated from a moderate carbon price would offset any detriment to coal miner communities. [6]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEYA'S PART:

Health & Global

Health

According to Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator, a repeal of the Clean Power Plan would lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 500 million metric tons by 2030, and by 2050, that figure would rise to more than 1,200 million metric tons.[7] High levels of CO2 and other particulate matter emissions cause adverse health affects and high levels of air pollution are linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic-obstructive-pulmonary disease.[8] The EPA estimates that in 2010 alone, the enactment of the Clean Power Plan prevented 160,000 deaths, 54,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 230 infant deaths, 130,000 cases of heart diseases and 86,000 emergency room visits.[9]

People of low income, elderly, and minority populations will be disproportionately affected by the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, as recent study at Harvard discovered that people over age 65 and living in low-income communities are most vulnerable to air pollution and are dying prematurely even under current air-pollution standards.[9] Furthermore, the EPA's proximity analysis concludes that a higher percentage of minority and low-income communities live near power plants when compared to the national averages, increasing risk of disease and death due to toxic particulate matter emissions and air pollution.[10]

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the EPA is required to make environmental justice a part of its mission. The Clean Power Plan provides tools to reduce the burden placed on minority, low-income, and indigenous communities from pollution and ensure that these communities are not disproportionately affected by the rule.[11] A Repeal of the Clean Power Plan will eliminate these requirements and allow corporations to increase their greenhouse gas emissions and pollution levels, disproportionately affecting the health risks due to high pollution levels within subaltern communities throughout the United States.

The EPA has determined that greenhouse gas pollution causes global temperature warming, leading to harmful changes to the environment and human health globally such as increased drought and increased famine due to decrease in water supply and agricultural production. According to the EPA fact sheet on the Clean Power Plan, climate change is responsible for everything from stronger storms to longer droughts and increased insurance premiums, food prices and allergy seasons.[12] The populations most vulnerable to the adverse affects of climate change include children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease and people living in poverty.[12] The repeal of the Clean Power Plan will increase greenhouse gas emissions, expediting the damaging environmental changes due to climate change that disproportionately affect subaltern populations around the globe.[7]

Global

The United States' enactment of the Clean Power Plan was one of the first major global initiatives to curb internal greenhouse gas emissions. Since the plan was established in 2014, there have been various global efforts made to decrease toxic particulate matter emissions by other developed nations. The Paris Agreement was agreed upon in October 2016 and entered into force in November 2016. The Paris Agreement aims to combat global climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius [13]. In order to enact the plan, 194 UNFCCC member nations have signed the treaty, 141 of which have ratified it.[13]

There is fear that with the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the United States will not be able to meet the greenhouse gas emission standards agreed upon at the Paris Convention, and in turn, will have to withdraw from the agreement. The United States still has a long way to go in meeting it's emission standards agreed upon at the Paris Convention. Although the U.S. has already achieved an emissions reduction of 572 million metric tons (a third of the Paris target) due to an increase in renewable energy resources and environmental regulations, in order to meet the goal set by the agreement, the Clean Power Plan is a crucial piece of legislation.[14] Without it, the United States is projected to fall over 20% short of it's pledge.[14] With the United States being a major nation at the forefront of the global economy and industrialization, there is potential for other nations to withdraw themselves from the agreement if the United States does not meet it's emission standards.

The decisions made on the global greenhouse gas emission rates by the economic powerhouse nations such as the United States and China disproportionately affect developing nations who don't have the infrastructure to combat climate change induced drought, famine, and other natural and anthropogenic disasters.[15] Globally, the poorest most underdeveloped nations emit the lowest levels of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses, but they are negatively affected by climate change at the highest rates.[15] Additionally, a rise in the price of food due to lack of water and agricultural difficulties as repercussions of increasing temperatures is expected to increase the number of people in poverty globally to over 1 billion by 2030 and the number of people at risk of hunger is projected to climb by 10% to 20% by 2050 [16]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEI'S PART:

Employment and Community Engagement

As aforementioned, a major part of the Clean Power Plan's mission is to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions [1]. One of the ways in which the United States has focused on following through with this reduction[2] is in the industrial sector. Critics of the Clean Power Plan have stated that the attempt in reducing these emissions is also going to be reducing the number of jobs in the United States because of the shrinkage in the industry sector.[2] There will be a 19% reduction in the iron and steel production, 21% reduction in cement production, and 11% in refining production. Conservative economists have found the co benefits of the Clean Power Plan are not as cost efficient as the EPA states. The Clean Power Plan will eliminate most coal power plants and begin replacing those with energy renewable sources such as wind and solar. Those who argue favorably for the Clean Power Plan have addressed the employment concerns of critics of the Clean Power Plan. While jobs will be decreasing in the industrial sector, there has also in been an increase nationwide[3] in the solar sector, wind sector, and energy efficient sector. One of the largest claims the EPA makes in promoting the Clean Power Plan is shutting down power plants; however, according to recent studies, it has been found that the indicated power plants were already going to be shut done due to other EPA regulations.[4] Many of the miners in the coal power plants state that these attempts in carbon reduction will be losing there jobs as a result of these reductions.

The NAACP released a report on the impact of communities affected by these same neighboring coal power plants in which are losing there jobs. The report states, of 378 of the coal power plants that were assessed for environmental justice performance, the affects on low income communities and communities of color, 75 of them received an F. In collaboration with Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), and the Indigenous Environmental Network, the NAACP combines these emission ratings with demographics, in which they found 78 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of coal fired power plant as compared to 56 percent of non-Hispanic whites. 71 percent of African Americans live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards, as compared to 58 percent of the white population. Asthma affects African Americans at a 36 percent higher rate of incidence than whites. African Americans are hospitalized for asthma at three times the rate of whites and die of asthma at twice the rate of whites.

EPA anticipates that, due to their low costs and large potential in every state, demand-side energy efficiency policies and programs will be a significant component of state compliance plans. EPA’s analysis projects that the Clean Power Plan will spur a 7 percent reduction in electricity demand by 2030 from demand-side energy efficiency, reducing electricity bills in 2030 by $7/month on average for American families and businesses. [1]

While some are skeptical of the Clean Power Plan because of it’s job loss in the industrial sector, the EPA has made clear that in order for the Clean Energy Plan to be effective, community engagement [1] from low income, minority and tribal communities is essential. To ensure opportunities in communities, the EPA is requiring all states demonstrate how they are actively engaging with communities. The EPA has created a Clean Energy Incentive Plan[1] which will reward communities who invest in wind and solar generations, including The Clean Power Plan Toolbox. The toolbox includes a variety of resources from EPA and Department of Energy (DOE) that can help states learn about, design and implement proven, cost-effective energy efficiency strategies to meet their Clean Power Plan targets, including best practices implemented by other states and through EPA’s ENERGY STAR Program.[10] In addition to incentivizing public engagement, they will also be testing air quality evaluations and providing demographic information in order to gauge the impact of air pollution on communities who are located near power plants. [1]

---------------- DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE ------------------------------

[17]

[18]

In your sandbox, write a few sentences about what you plan to contribute to the selected article. 

  •  Think back to when you did an article critique. What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page, too. 
    • I can add my experience as a student having seen the movement for UC fossil fuel divestment first-hand. In order to talk about it though, i will primarily utilize my access to campus resources and documents about the movement and the effects of it.
  •  Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.
    • UC Berkeley financial statements
    • ASUC records
    • Campus initiatives, messages from the UC president, meeting records, etc.

Fossil Fuel Divestment ( Climate Divestment ) Article

(We are adding to an existing article)

The fossil free wikipedia page currently does not list UC Berkeley's divestment movement as well as the general UC divestment movement. We hope to add the history of UC Berkeley's divestment movement as well as an additional section to the page that discusses the difficulty economics and changing investment trends on fossil fuel divestment. In this economic section, we will use the example of Trump's climate policy to show how it might prove challenging for the movement.

NEW TOPIC:

Clean Energy Trends

Introduction

Clean Energy Trends are analyzed across finance trends, environmental justice trends, and other relevant trends. Clean energy is a growing business Trends in support for clean energy development has varied historically among minority groups and low-income communities throughout the United States. As efforts to curb climate change have increased exponentially in recent decades, there has in turn been an increased push for clean energy use in order to decrease carbon emissions. This trend [19]emerged strongly in the 1970s when solar cells began to lower in price and become cost effective for use on land. Economically disadvantaged communities and minority populations are disproportionately affected by fossil fuel use and have differed historically in their perspectives on clean energy development[20]. Subaltern opulations that argue in support of clean energy use claim that renewable energy brings jobs and savings to llowiincome communities curbs climate change, and decreases toxic waste emissions that lead to health issues. Opposition groups back big oil/coal/fossil fuel companies, and make the case that what they call unjust incentives favoring the wealthy undermine the virtues of solar power etc.

More recently, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan policy enacted in 2014,[21] not only aims to reduce emissions, but also pushes the use of more renewable energy and energy conservation. However, with the new Trump Administration, he has vowed to shrink (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/trump-victory-reverses-u-s-energy-and-environmental-priorities/)

the role of the EPA.

Subsections:

Finance Trends - Hannah

Job Trends

Growth Trends - Hannah

Policy Trends - Leila

Environmental Justice Trends - Teya

Teya’s Section (Environmental Justice Trends)

  • http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-race-20150209-story.html
    • Support for clean energy development has varied historically among minority groups and low income communities throughout the United States. As efforts to curb climate change have increased globally, there has in turn been an increased push for clean energy use in order to decrease carbon emissions. Subaltern populations are disproportionately affected by pollution due to the use of fossil fuel energy resources,
      • FOR: The argument for clean energy is that it brings jobs and savings to low income communities https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/clean-energy-benefits-FS-urban.pdf
      • AGAINST: Groups that back big oil/coal/fossil fuel companies make the case that what they call unjust incentives favoring the wealthy undermine the virtues of solar power etc. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-race-20150209-story.html
  • http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-0
    • Why is Renewable Energy So Expensive? ^^^
    • “Many governments are pumping money into renewable sources of electricity, such as wind turbines, solar farms, hydroelectric and geothermal plants. But countries with large amounts of renewable generation, such as Denmark and Germany, face the highest energy prices in the rich world.”
  • https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants
    • The Clean Power Plan (announced by President Obama and EPA on August 3, 2015) is the nation’s first-ever plan limiting carbon pollution from power plants (which are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States) and was developed with the intention of benefitting minority and low-income communities, which are more likely to be located in areas burdened with pollution.
  • http://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/022216justice
    • “The Clean Power Plan will not only cut millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but also hundreds of thousands of tons of particulate pollution that becomes soot and smog.”
    • In accordance with Executive Order 12898, EPA is required to make environmental justice a part of its mission. After active involvement and feedback from the EJ community, the Clean Power Plan provides tools to reduce the burden placed on minority, low-income, and indigenous communities from pollution and ensure that these communities are not disproportionately affected by the rule.
  • https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/02/18/the-supreme-court-suspends-obamas-clean-power-plan-changing-the-law-on-staying-put/#732c5440726d
    • There was controversy surrounding the benefits vs. costs of the Clean Power Plan.
    • Big energy/coal corporations argue that the Clean Power Plan would “dramatically cut coal use, force the implementation of new and expensive technologies, and harm those with low incomes.” (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/clean-energy-benefits-FS-urban.pdf)

Hannah’s Section (Finance Trends)

Possible titles for my section:

  • Effect of Fossil Fuel Policy on Divestment
  • Financial Impact of Fossil Fuel Divestment

Sources for Things that make it harder to divest:

  • https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html
  • https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/trump-energy-plans-no-economic-growth

Sources of things that make it easier to divest:

  • “Shareholders and regulators are demanding that companies disclose their exposure to climate risk, exposing fossil fuel companies to further divestment and legal action. Policymakers are increasingly demanding that fossil fuel companies disclose their exposure to climate risk. Regulators in France, Sweden, and California have all released climate-risk transparency initiatives. In June, the European Union released a directive requiring pension funds to assess “risks related to climate change, use of resources, the environment, social risks, and risks related to the depreciation of assets due to regulatory change (‘stranded assets’),” and to disclose the methods and results of such assessments.16 The directive affects funds with combined assets worth over $3.4 trillion.17” https://www.arabellaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Global_Divestment_Report_2016.pdf
  • UCs sold off a bunch of fossil fuel investments because of pressure http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-ln-uc-coal-20150909-story.html
  • Letter from councilmember at berkeley to send a letter to the Regents of the UCs to divest, the financials of Berkeley city, and http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/SearchMain.aspx?cx=017385055954264103894:kn5xiwd8ubm&cof=FORID:9&ie=UTF-8&q=divestment
  • Berkeley city investments: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/16,109606%20Investment%20(divestment)%20policy.pdf
  • Trump and fossil fuel investment: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2017/01/19/with-a-record-1-4-trillion-in-sustainability-assets-investors-bail-on-fossil-fuels/#7185ee8f7859
  • http://divestinvest.org/2016-report/

Leila’s Section - Policy Trends

Trump and Clean Energy Plan

  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/trump-victory-reverses-u-s-energy-and-environmental-priorities/ E


------------------------

march 15th edits to how we will organize our article:

  1. ^ a b EPA,OAR,OAQPS, US. "FACT SHEET: Overview of the Clean Power Plan". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "Putting a Price on Carbon: Ensuring Equity | World Resources Institute". www.wri.org. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  3. ^ News, Emily Holden,E&E. "Was the Clean Power Plan Really Bad for the Economy?". Scientific American. Retrieved 2017-04-06. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ "Home". www.nera.com. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  5. ^ "The Economic Impacts of the Clean Power Plan: How Studies of the Same Regulation Can Produce Such Different Results | World Resources Institute". www.wri.org. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  6. ^ "Putting a Price on Carbon: Ensuring Equity | World Resources Institute". www.wri.org. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  7. ^ a b "Analysis: Clean Power Plan repeal could cost $600B, result in 120,000 premature deaths". Utility Dive. Retrieved 2017-04-05.
  8. ^ "Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2017-04-05.
  9. ^ a b CNN, Alice Kantor, David Heath. "Nixing EPA's climate-change plan will cost lives, expert says". CNN. Retrieved 2017-04-05. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ a b EPA,OAR,OAQPS, US. "Clean Power Plan Community Page". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Inc., Piccirilli Dorsey,. "Environmental Justice in the Clean Power Plan | Briefing | EESI". www.eesi.org. Retrieved 2017-04-05. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ a b EPA,OAR,OAQPS, US. "FACT SHEET: Overview of the Clean Power Plan". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ a b Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. "The Paris Agreement - main page". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  14. ^ a b "Trump's repeal of climate rules means U.S. cannot meet Paris goals". Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  15. ^ a b "See What Climate Change Means for the World's Poor". National Geographic News. 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  16. ^ Vidal, John (2013-09-27). "Climate change will hit poor countries hardest, study shows". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-04-06.
  17. ^ "Trump victory reverses U.S. energy and environmental priorities". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-03-02.
  18. ^ "Trump victory reverses U.S. energy and environmental priorities". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-03-02.
  19. ^ "Historical Timeline - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org". alternativeenergy.procon.org. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  20. ^ "The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  21. ^ "Clean Power Plan". Wikipedia. 2017-03-01.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hfrankl/sandbox&oldid=785138458"