Policy Memos – Human Dimensions of the Environment

This spring, the university will lead Virginia’s participation in “Solve Climate by 2030". Virginia’s General Assembly is expected to consider a number of pieces of climate-related legislation. Our class will assist the university in developing content to inform the webinar and panel discussion.

Karen Akerlof

Professor

Solve Climate by 2030

Planting Trees for Graduation

Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

To: Concerned Parties

Date: March 25, 2020

Re: Planting Trees for Graduation

Background:

Deforestation is an issue involving areas all around the globe. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the United States holds about 8% of the world’s forests, and 56% of the country’s forests are in private ownership.
Although the United State’s forests are classified as stable, climate change has contributed to a variety of other issues that affect forest life, such as drought, wildfire, invasive species, and outbreaks of insects/disease. The increase of severe weather events due to climate change have a direct impact on the ability of forests across the country to thrive (Tidwell 2016).
Drought weakens trees and renders them unable to fight off increasing beetle outbreaks. Climate change has resulted in increasing beetle infestations simply because “winter cold is no longer limiting bark beetles”. Drought also leads to extreme fire weather, and fire seasons are slowly becoming longer, with fires spreading much faster and burning much hotter than before (Tidwell 2016).

Planting Trees as a Graduation Requirement:

To aid in the efforts to combat the current quality of forest life, I propose that students be required to plant at least one tree in order to graduate.
The Philippines already have a similar law in place (Graduation Legacy for Environment Act), requiring all high school and college students to plant 10 trees in order to graduate. This law would ensure at least 175 million trees are planted each year, as an average of 12 million, 5 million, and 500 thousand students graduate from elementary school, high school, and college each year, respectively. The goal in the Philippines is that around 525 billion trees will be planted over the course of one generation, and around 525 million trees will survive (10% survival rate). These trees are set to be planted in a variety of different areas and are appropriate to their surrounding conditions (Papadopoulos 2019).
This policy would require students to plant at least one tree in order to graduate from high school. According to the National Center of Education Statistics, 3.7 million students are expected to graduate high school during the 2019-20 school year (both public and private schools included). This rate has seen a steady increase over the years. According to the Virginia Department of Education, about 93 thousand students graduated high school in Virginia in 2019. Therefore, if this policy were implanted on either a federal or state level, we would see a large increase in the planting of trees.
This policy could be implemented by schools, districts, or governments hosting tree planting events. Schools could also have the option of leaving the decision up to the students to plant a tree in their own time and provide proof, or students can join one of many established events hosted by environmental charities, such as One Tree Planted. These trees could simply be planted in students’ backyards or in other areas where tree planting is allotted.

Additional Considerations:

This plan would definitely have a positive impact on the environment as students will be planting trees each year, either in the fall or spring depending on the time of graduation, and therefore contributing to an overall healthier area. The planting of trees and restoring forests also promises value through both recreation and tourism.
An additional consideration would be the current political situation. This policy may not be able to receive the proper attention or support due to the current president’s views regarding climate change, but could be much easier implemented on a state level.

Recommendations:

This proposal may be implemented on either a federal or state level, or even by schools themselves individually. Funding could be given to the Environmental Protection Agency, or to individual environmental departments in each state.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Citation:

https://onetreeplanted.org/collections/where-we-plant

Deregulating VA Energy Markets

Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

From: Evan Seklecki

Date: 3/18/2020

Topic Name: Deregulating VA Energy Markets

Background

The privately owned utility Company, Dominion Energy, has long held a relative monopoly on the energy needs of Virginians for decades
It’s influence on Virginia politics has been rampant in both parties until only recently
The majority of Virginia energy is provided by Dominion and produced using natural gas with nuclear coming in second [1]
In 2012 Dominion opened the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center, which focuses on using a coal mine byproduct to create energy
Under the newly passed Virginia Clean Economy Act this center will be allowed to stay open until 2045 instead of 2030: This impacts the efforts to move toward climate neutrality[2]
This bill also outlines a massive expansion of renewable energy infrastructure, which includes 16,100 MW of solar and 5,200 MW of wind energy in the form of a massive wind farm off the Virginia coast
The problem is that Dominion is being allowed to build over half of the offshore wind infrastructure, furthering securing its position of power in Virginia
Texas, the state with the freest electric market in the nation, also has the most wind generation [3]
Between 1991 and 2005, states with electrical competition saw a 6% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants[4]
Consumers have also shown a demand for clean energy. Competition allows alternative providers to fill this demand
In terms of Nuclear power in Virginia, Dominion owns both power plants(four reactors), that provide the state with nearly 40% of VA’s electricity[5]

Deregulation

Deregulation is essential to encouraging competition in the market and giving consumers more options and better prices
Although “deregulate” is a highly politicized term, the true synonym to this would be “demonopolize”
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave states the power to create their own energy policies and since then both Texas and Pennsylvania have led the charge in deregulation: This has led to a reduction in prices[6]
Virginia: In 2007 and 2013 Dominion sought partial re-regulation that charges customers for new facilities as well as massive tax cuts and bailouts from the state [7]
Separating Dominion from the means of production would weaken their power as lobbyists
- Would also give lawmakers options to support other smaller companies that benefit workers and consumers
- They can support companies that offer renewable energy without catering to the demands of large, historically profit focused entities, like Dominion
Competition also requires companies to try to provide energy at the lowest cost to the consumer
- It is essential that legislation is also passed to support the development of renewable energy infrastructure in order to enable it to compete with fossil fuels which are cheap, and the infrastructure is already in place
- In addition a carbon tax needs to be in place to further discourage the use of those fossil fuels and to help fund the grants given to renewable energy companies

Additional Considerations

Bipartisan efforts have already been taken by delegates Mark Keam and Lee Ware to make deregulation a reality[8]
Their bill seeks to add additional options for low income customers
Being that many other states already have open energy markets it is very plausible that Virginia moves in the same direction
If VA maintains or even strengthens its CO2 and environmental regulations while giving financial priority to renewable options then customers will actively choose those options, effectively phasing out fossil fuels

Recommendations

Both Democrat and Republican states have opened their markets and found success
A bipartisan effort with a focus on improving the environment & ensuring constituents lower energy costs is the headstone of this action

__________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Geology and Mineral Resources (2019). Energy Resources. Retrieved from: https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/dgmr/energyreso.shtml Date Accessed: March 22, 2020

[2] Vogelsong, Sarah. (March 6, 2020) “Virginia Clean Energy Act clears General Assembly, aided by beefed up ratepayer protections.” Virginia Mercury. Retrieved from: https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/03/06/virginia-clean-economy-act-clears-general-assembly-aided-by-beefed-up-ratepayer-protections/

[3] Neeley, Josiah. “How we can combat climate change: Open electric markets to competition.” Washingtonpost.com. (January 2, 2019). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/02/feature/opinion-here-are-11-climate-change-policies-to-fight-for-in-2019/#10 Date Accessed: March 22, 2020.

[4] Neeley, Josiah. “How we can combat climate change: Open electric markets to competition.” Washingtonpost.com. (January 2, 2019). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/02/feature/opinion-here-are-11-climate-change-policies-to-fight-for-in-2019/#10 Date Accessed: March 22, 2020.

[5] Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium. (2015). Retrieved from: https://virginianuclear.org/nuclear-energy-in-virginia/ Date Retrieved: March 22, 2020

[6] Energy Professionals. “Breaking up the Monopoly.” Retrieved from: https://www.energyprofessionals.com/breaking-up-the-monopoly/ Date Retrieved: March 22, 2020

[7] Fang, Lee. (November 6, 2019). “Democratic Sweep Sets Up Confrontation With Corporate Giant That Has Loomed Over Virginia Politics For A Century.” The Intercept. Retrieved from: https://theintercept.com/2019/11/06/virginia-democrats-dominion-energy-lobbying/ Date Retrieved: March 22, 2020

[8] Lake, Sydney. (January 7, 2020). “Bipartisan bill seeks to demonopolize state electric energy market.” Virginia Business. Retrieved from: https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/bipartisan-bill-would-demonopolize-electric-energy-market/ Date Retrieved: March 22, 2020

Food Waste Management

To: Virginia’s General Assembly

From: Joey

Re: Food Waste Management

March 25, 2020

Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

Background

For many years, there has been a special place in America’s economy for food. The overall growth of many industries has relied on the success of many food businesses such as restaurants to grocery stores to hospitality companies to other types of work. Because this aspect of the economy is thriving under the notion that food is an essential part of one’s life, the US wastes about 40% of it.[1] There are many reasons for excess food waste such as, spoilage, over-ordering from retailers, food damage, and aesthetic reasons. A large cause for this dilemma is the lifestyle of most Americans. Eating out has led to unfinished and eventually spoiled leftovers. Fresh home-cooked meals have a short fridge-life when unfinished. Families tend to overbuy. According to a 2018 U.S Agriculture Development Analysis, affluent shoppers waste the most produce because of how much they buy and immediately throw away due to its lack of freshness.[2] There are many places in the U.S. alone that can benefit from edible food waste, composting and a change in lifestyle choices.

Food Waste Management

One of the main sources of food waste is the consumer. Sarah Taber, a crop scientist, claims that many produce items are actually being accounted for when harvested.[3] Most of what reaches grocery stores is good quality because throwing away food scraps can be very expensive. It is because people have such high standards on food freshness that demand is higher. Because the demand is so high for many food items, food production has to reach a certain number in order to meet those demands. One way to reduce the waste is proposing food waste bans. There are a number of states enforcing food waste bans that have shown promising results. Food waste bans regulate the amount of food scraps to be sent to landfills by commercial entities and enforce mandatory recycling laws. Food waste bans and more accessible food banks and composting facilities are related aspects that can help reduce energy use from excess food waste. Certain states have seen noticeable progress from food waste bans for example, Massachusetts has seen an increase in job growth and Vermont has recorded many food bank donations.[4] I also propose more accessible composting facilities not just for business but also for household purposes. One of the challenges of food waste bans Leibrock stated is the necessary proper education in waste disposal. Food waste bans are fairly new and need time to develop and improve. I think promoting the concept of composting and changes in lifestyle choices such as an emphasis in buying only what you need, reading packaging labels, etc. through families can help not only the amount of food waste but in cutting extra costs overall. Food banks are mostly dependent on donations. In order to cut down food waste, food businesses are encouraged to make donations to follow those food waste ban guidelines.

Additional considerations

As noted earlier, food waste bans are fairly new. There is not much accumulated data to show need for immediate support but there are many components related to food waste bans such as composting and recycling that have been proven effective. Broadening these components to larger scales can maximize their benefits. Less overgrazing, less landfill waste, and nutritious soil are just some of the possible positive environmental impacts of food waste bans. The agriculture industry accounts for a large part of energy use when measuring water usage, transportation, labor, and other aspects. Food waste bans can be a very big lifestyle change. Building composting facilities for businesses and households to use can be very costly but in turn can also provide jobs. Additionally, reducing food waste by just 15 percent could provide enough sustenance to feed more than 25 million people, annually.[5]

Recommendations

Food waste bans are best regulated on a state level. The proposal should also be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I also recommend implementing waste disposal in many primary student curriculums. I think teaching younger generations how to compost and recycle properly could be very helpful in sustaining the practice important of food waste bans. Teaching them certain life choices can change the lifestyle that has cause the accumulation of food waste.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Neff, R, Opinion: Here are 11 climate change policies to fight for in 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/02/feature/opinion-here-are-11-climate-change-policies-to-fight-for-in-2019/#6, (January 2019).

[2] “Food Waste FAQs.” USDA. U.S Department of Agriculture, https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs, (March 2019).

[3] Lieber, Chavie. “A Scientist on the Myth of Ugly Produce and Food Waste.” Vox, Vox, https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/26/18240399/food-waste-ugly-produce-myths-farms, (February 2019).

[4] Leibrock, Amy, “Are Food Waste Bans Working?” Sustainable America, https://sustainableamerica.org/blog/are-food-waste-bans-working/ (January 2017).

[5] “Food Waste Is a Massive Problem-Here’s Why,” FoodPrint, https://foodprint.org/issues/the-problem-of-food-waste/ Accessed March 2019.

Carbon Neutrality, the Chesapeake Bay, and Carbon Sequestration

Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

To: Concerned Parties

From: Nicolas Seidel, Environmental Science major at George Mason University

Date: March 24, 2020

RE: Carbon Neutrality, the Chesapeake Bay, Carbon sequestration, and solutions to the problem.

Background:

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, a livelihood to thousands of people, a home and sanctuary to thousands of species of animals as well as species of plants, and an indicator of how climate change is affecting our local and regional waters and lands as well. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries has a huge presence in the Commonwealth of Virginia covering nearly 7, 213 miles of shoreline (Berman 2010). The Chesapeake Bay reaches, not only the shores of Virginia and Maryland, as it is famous for, but New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Virginia.
It plays a major role in Carbon sequestration for these areas and the effects of climate change has affected the way that it helps reduce the amount of carbon in the air. In 2017 Virginia was ranked 17^th among all other states in total carbon emissions at 98.0 million metric tons released (EIA), making a case that change needs to happen.
This can start with creating a better Carbon sequestration program for the areas that surround the Chesapeake Bay as well as the all-important Eel grasses that grow in the bay and can be valuable sinks for carbon storage. Due to the consequences of climate change, such as warming waters, Eel grass meadows in the Chesapeake have been in decline for many years now. Its importance to Carbon sequestration is something that should not be taken for granted. “Loss of seagrass meadows contributes to the emissions of greenhouse gases by preventing C02 sequestration and enhancing the risk of emissions from stored soil carbon if these habitats are eroded (Lovelock 2017).” We must do something to right the ship on this issue and we can all help.

Proposing a plan to increase and use plant life in and around the Chesapeake Bay for added Carbon Sequestering:

In order for Virginia to completely be Carbon neutral by the year 2030 there are many things that need to happen and steps that we need to take, such as going to more use of renewable energy as opposed to using fossil fuels, cutting down on vehicle emissions, or replacing older buildings with newer “greener” buildings that create less energy use. As decarbonization is the end goal, “decarbonization doesn’t imply zero emissions, as emissions can be balanced by carbon sequestration if adequate reductions or enhanced carbon sinks exist” (DES 2019). Protecting and increasing the amount of plant life on our shorelines and coastal areas as well as increasing the amount of Eel grass plants in our Chesapeake sea beds can decrease Virginia’s carbon footprint by a good amount and be part of the solution that will help Virginia to Carbon neutrality.
To enact this plan, it will take efforts from multiple resources, starting with the agricultural industry. In a recent study done by Yale University, it is found that by following relatively simple standards for the many farmers that have land bordering the many acres of Chesapeake Bay shoreline. According to the study, we must enforce such practices as “using information on the number of acres of land, watershed-wide, expected to be placed under several agricultural best management practices (Climate Change 2020).” These include implementing strict regulations on cover crops, tree and grass buffers, rotational grazing, and no till-farming techniques. By using these environmental practices to enhance the number of plants on land as well as protecting the waters from nutrient runoff, Virginia and other areas in contact with the Chesapeake Bay, “could safely sequester 4.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (Climate Change 2020)”.
The second part of the plan then requires the planting of Eelgrass beds and other grasses into the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Due to climate change and changing water temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay, Eelgrass meadows have recently been in decline. Fortunately, Eelgrass grows quickly and this is also a problem that is not focused only in the Chesapeake Bay, but many areas in our oceans as well. For this reason, there have been successful Eelgrass replacement projects that have taken place that we can use as a guideline to follow. Tests have shown that replacement of Eelgrasses in areas of Florida and parts of New Hampshire have had successful results. It was shown that after one year of replacement that these grasses have sequestered the equivalency of about 8 Tons per Hectare after just two years of growth (Lovelock 2017). Other studies have shown that the intake of CO2 by these grasses not only is good for them, but the surrounding ecosystems as well.
Although there are a few methods of seagrass implantation that are can be effective, to help with this fast-acting plan of Carbon neutrality I suggest growing and implanting plants that already have an established root system and can be used as a sod. By using this method, the process of Carbon sequestration could start taking effect almost immediately.

Additional Considerations:

Along with the benefits of Carbon sequestration, this plan has an economic and ecological benefit as well. Studies have shown that with the loss of Eelgrass in the Chesapeake Bay has cause loss of habitat for many species that many people rely on to make a living, such as the blue crab and many different species of fish. (Malmquist 2017)
A second consideration to think about is today’s political climate. With current administration in the White House this plan may have a tough time getting the funding or attention that it needs or deserves. The good news here is that there is an upcoming election that has candidates that will be open to giving the proper attention to the plan. Although if there is no change in administration, Virginia’s Carbon tax will be used to fund the tree and Eelgrass restoration programs.

Recommendations:

This proposal can be implemented on a federal level, and on a state level using local governments. The funding needed will come from agencies such as the S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA’s Virginia Coastal Program, or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The EPA will have to enact greener regulations on the agriculture industry and the governments will need to implement use of scientists, researchers, and volunteers to get the plants in the areas that they are needed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Citations:

Berman, M. (2010, April 2). How long is Virginia’s shoreline? Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/faqs/shoreline_miles.php
Climate Change. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.cbf.org/issues/climate-change/
Department of Environmental Services, Arlington County. (2019). Community Energy Plan. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https:///-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/10/Final-CEP-CLEAN-003.pdf
Lovelock, C., Atwood, T., Baldock, J., Duarte, C., Hickey, S., Lavery, P., . . . Steven, A. (2017). Assessing the risk of carbon dioxide emissions from blue carbon ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,15(5), 257-265. Retrieved March 01, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/26164335
Malmquist, D. (2017, February 13). Study: long-term eelgrass loss due to joint effects of shade, heat. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/2016/eelgrass_loss.php
S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=VA#series/226

Virginia Clean Economy Act Nationwide

TO: Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

FROM: Guilliod Laura

RE: In the absence of Federal action, the Virginia Clean Economy Act lead the sustainability journey in the South to move toward a 100% clean future.

Date: April 6, 2020

I/ Policy Background

While only nine states in the U.S passed legislation for 100% zero-carbon energy & renewable energy, California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Maine, New-Jersey, New-York, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, no southern states had followed the move before Virginia signed the “Virginia Clean Economy Act” (VCEA) this 6 march, 2020, and became the first state of the south to do so, generalizing a USA wide action for Environmental Justice.^[1]

This accomplishment was made possible when the Democrat Ralph Northam was elected Governor of Virginia in January 2018. Indeed, it ended an everlasting Republican domination of the State and allow for a democrat administration to issue numerous bills, such as the Clean Economy Act, HB1526/SB851, and the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act, HB981/SB1027, to align with the U.S wide energy efficiency program & the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative^[2]. This bills planned a renewable energy target of 30% by 2030, a 100% Carbon-free State by 2050, and the creation of over 85, 100 new jobs in renewable energy & energy efficiency realms^[3].

It was necessary for the State to take such environmental policies into action to reduce pollution, grow the clean energy economy, prepare for climate impact, strive for climate and environmental justice, and increase resiliency of Virginia communities.^[4]

Besides setting clear goals for sustainable actions, the importance of such bills is also to expand the space for the development of a private renewables industry and largely encourage fossil fuel facilities retirement.

Therefore, this Memo proposes to make the Virginia Clean Economy Act into a U.S wide law applied by all States. As a reminder, in November 2018 the National Climate Assessment (NCA) confirmed that Americans were already experiencing the effects of Climate Change such as increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather, heat waves, wildfires, and flooding due to climate change, and that if no actions were taken, significant economic, health, and environmental damages will occur in only a few decades^[5].

II/ Making the VCEA Nation wide

Why should we make the VCEA Nationwide?

The answer is in the question because the “Clean” means ecological & sustainable, and the “Economy” means a new way of organizing the economy around the “Clean”.

Indeed, the particularity of this Act is in the longterm effect it engages as it planned the retirement of old fossil fuel sources of energy and their replacement by new renewable sources which will generate costs, but also and above all incomes and advantages in the long-run.

In the example of VCEA, even if the actual main electricity provider in the State, Dominion & Appalachian Power Company (ApCo), both are mandated by the VCEA to be 100% carbon-free electricity, they will keep their monopoly and have different specific goals to achieve, Dominion by 2045 and ApCo by 2050, with interim targets in-between.^[6]

Thus, this example shows a comprehensive and transitional approach to Climate change policy implementation.

Moreover, in term of energy efficiency, in addition, to boost storage, offshore wind, and rooftop solar energy, Virginia has a statewide goal to reduce retail electricity consumption 10% by 2022 by calling for a state-wide energy performance contracting efforts from all utilities (Dominion and ApCo) along with the replacement of all public transportation using fossil fuel by a transportation electrification plan (including buses, school buses, funding toward electric vehicles (EVs), statewide an EV charging network, and extension of metro lines).

To date, energy performance contracting efforts in Virginia (planned in the VCEA) have reduced nearly 43 million kWh of electricity and avoided 31,219 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. This represents the application of only a substantial part of the bill being already a success, which comforts our certainty of the efficacy of the VCEA Nationwide.^[7]

Therefore, instead of being a cost for Virginia, the VCEA will rather be a source of revenue because it will avoid waste of energy and electricity, and be a booster of the economy as it will “Jump-start the solar industry in the state”^[8]

III/ Additional Consideration

Additionally, the VCEA planned its climate finance so that VirginiaSAVES provide nearly $65 million in financing support for energy efficiency projects to reduce over 18 million kWh of electricity, 22 million gallons of water, and 18,675 tons of CO2 each year; as a demonstration of its economic costs and feasibility.^[9]

Lastly, the VCEA even create social benefit as it protects low-income consumers, and will create a Percentage of Income Payment Program that caps the amount they pay for electricity to a set percentage of their income so that the state will prefer low-income and vulnerable communities for new renewable energy projects and job training programs^[10]. Hence, the social effects on equity within the community are also part of the VCEA.

IV/ Policy Recommendation

Consequently, to implement the VCEA Nationwide, it needs to be done at a State level because at a Federal level, the actual presidency is not concerned by Climate Change, and even in case of a democrat presidency, the congress (mainly Republican) can refuse it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

^[1] J. Podesta et al., State Fact Sheet: A 100 Percent Clean Future (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/10/16/475863/state-fact-sheet-100-percent-clean-future/ ) (Oct 16, 2019)

^[2] I. Main, With a framework for Virginia’s energy transition in place, here’s what happens next, Virginia Mercury (https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/03/31/with-a-framework-for-virginias-energy-transition-in-place-heres-what-happens-next/) (March 31, 2020)

^[3] United States Climate Alliance, FACT SHEET: Virginia’s Climate Leadership (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4cfbfe18b27d4da21c9361/t/5db711a276c6430f002435a0/1572278691224/USCA_2019+State+Factsheet-VA_201901011.pdf ) (2019)

^[4] United States Climate Alliance, FACT SHEET: Virginia’s Climate Leadership (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4cfbfe18b27d4da21c9361/t/5db711a276c6430f002435a0/1572278691224/USCA_2019+State+Factsheet-VA_201901011.pdf ) (2019)

^[5] U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment (Nov. 2018)

^[6] D. Roberts, Virginia becomes the first state in the South to target 100% clean power: The state’s Democratic majority is doing what Democratic majorities do. VOX newspaper (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/12/21172836/renewable-energy-virginia-100-percent-clean) (Mar 12, 2020)

^[7] United States Climate Alliance, FACT SHEET: Virginia’s Climate Leadership (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4cfbfe18b27d4da21c9361/t/5db711a276c6430f002435a0/1572278691224/USCA_2019+State+Factsheet-VA_201901011.pdf ) (2019)

^[8] B. Diane, Virginia to Become South’s Clean-Energy Leader. Public New Service (https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2020-03-09/climate-change-air-quality/virginia-to-become-souths-clean-energy-leader/a69490-1) (March 9, 2020)

^[9] United States Climate Alliance, FACT SHEET: Virginia’s Climate Leadership (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4cfbfe18b27d4da21c9361/t/5db711a276c6430f002435a0/1572278691224/USCA_2019+State+Factsheet-VA_201901011.pdf ) (2019)

^[10] D. Roberts, Virginia becomes the first state in the South to target 100% clean power: The state’s Democratic majority is doing what Democratic majorities do. VOX newspaper (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/12/21172836/renewable-energy-virginia-100-percent-clean) (Mar 12, 2020)

Let's Establish More Bee Sanctuaries

To: Interested Parties

Date: March 27^th, 2020

RE: Let’s Establish More Bee Sanctuaries: Solving Climate by 2030

Background

The global decline of bee populations is a well-documented phenomenon that has been closely linked to climate change, invasive parasites, and pesticide usage. It is well known that bees are excellent pollinators, carrying pollen from flower to flower and fertilizing plants. There are nearly 20,000 known bee species in the world, with 4,000 known species being native to the United States. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, bees pollinate roughly 75 percent of all fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in the United States. One out of every four bites of food are grown with the help of bee pollination. Bee pollination is also responsible for over $15 billion in increased crop value each year. But the importance of bees isn’t restricted to the agriculture industry, as native bees pollinate roughly 80 percent of flowering plants around the world. [1] Because of this, bees play an important role in mitigating climate change by promoting the growth and reproduction of flowering trees through pollination. While nearly all common conifers rely on wind pollination, the same cannot be said for non-wind pollinated species, who rely heavily on bees for reproduction. Examples of native trees that rely on bees are apple trees, basswood, cherry trees, black locusts, catalpas, horse chestnuts, tulip trees, and willows. [2]

Solving Climate by 2030 is an ambitious yet accomplishable goal, it will require numerous policy proposals, significant enforcement of said policies, and cooperation amongst many different organizations, companies, and governments. The promotion of bee conservation, sustainable beekeeping, and bee sanctuaries would be a step in the right direction for pursuing this goal. As stated before, climate change is a contributing factor to the global decline of bee populations. Climate change can affect the way plants naturally grow and begin to flower. Warming climates cause snow to melt earlier than usual, which in turn makes plants flower sooner. In many parts of the world, trees have been blooming two to three weeks earlier than usual, and many bees are still dormant around this time. With less pollen and nectar, bees are less likely to reproduce, becoming more susceptible to illness and predators in the process. Without the bees, the plants will lack important pollinators, in turn making them less healthy and more susceptible to illness themselves. [3]

What’s being Proposed

Communities and organizations across the United States and other countries around the world have already taken it upon themselves to create bee sanctuaries on their own properties. For example, the Honeybee Conservatory is a public charity that frequently assists in the funding and building of bee habitats. They create bee sanctuaries by placing solitary and honeybees in community gardens, urban farms, and parkland areas in the US and Canada. [4] Since another major factor of bee decline is habitat loss, this method of conservation provides bee colonies with a home and source of food. [5] These habitats promote the growth of native trees and flowers and the continued health and reproduction of bee populations.

While this is an amazing step in the right direction, it is understandable that many people lack the time, recourses, and money for building and maintaining these sanctuaries. That is why I am proposing compensation for homeowners and businesses who build bee sanctuaries on their property.

Additional Consideration

Political Feasibility: An obvious potential stakeholder would be the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a government organization whose primary goal is to protect human health and the environment. They have involved themselves with programs concerning pollinator protection before, which can be viewed extensively on their official website. [6] Independent organizations and charities such as the previously mentioned Honeybee Conservatory charity could also play a hand. I think it would be ideal to start with local governments by county or district enacting this compensation.

Economic Costs: The economic costs of this would be tricky to pinpoint. Perhaps we could implement a system like how Planned Parenthood uses a federal funding program, where less affluent homeowners will be additionally compensated with proper gardening supplies in addition to the compensation that comes with the bee sanctuary being completed. Planned Parenthood has a similar process where they allow free reproductive health services for individuals who can’t afford it. [7] Instead of federal funds, we could instead rely on state or county funding.

Effects on Equity: These bee sanctuaries can be effectively used to grow edible plants, which can reduce what you’d otherwise spend at the grocery store. Container gardening can be implemented into a bee sanctuary, or even placed in window boxes or patios, to both entice bees and help you grow herbs and spices at an affordable price. Edible flower choices include trailing nasturtiums, French marigold, pansies, bachelor buttons, johnny jump-ups, violets, and impatiens. [8]

Environmental Impacts: The environmental impact of supplying physical gardening supplies can add up overtime, considering the carbon emissions generated from vehicles needed to ship these tools. To minimize this, homeowners who can’t afford the proper tools for building a bee sanctuary could instead be paid in advance with additional funds needed for gardening supplies. This won’t eliminate the problem entirely but may encourage the homeowner to buy from local stores, which is considerably closer than wherever an online order of fertilizer or a shovel came from.

Recommendations

This proposal would ideally be implemented through a state or county funding program, we could look too Virginia first. Enacting this proposal would require support from our local communities, there needs to be an invested interest in developing these bee sanctuaries, or simply promoting sustainable gardens on homeowner and business properties.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-bees-important?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

[2]https://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/why_are_some_trees_pollinated_by_wind_and_some_by_insects

[3] https://thehoneybeeconservancy.org/bees-climate-change/

[4] https://thehoneybeeconservancy.org/sanctuaries-2/

[5] https://owlcation.com/stem/Bees-Pollination-and-Habitat-Loss

[6] https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection

[7] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-central-western-new-york/patient-resources/paying-your-health-care/about-our-fees

[8] https://thehoneybeeconservancy.org/2010/04/04/delightful-plants-for-honeybees-and-their-human-friends/

Carbon Capture and Storage

Memo to Solve Climate Change by 2030

Russell Pettaway

3/16/2020

Carbon Capture and Storage Technology

Background

● There are many issues facing our society today, and among all of them may be the most important one, climate change. Climate change, mainly anthropogenic climate change has already had a drastic effect on life today from increasing temperatures leading to the melting of ice caps to the rise in sea levels across the world, there is no denying climate change can have many unforeseen climate changes if proper efforts to mitigate climate change are not enacted.

● Although there have been mitigation efforts have been enacted such as moving to renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and many more. These efforts have to lead to reduced emissions in greenhouse gases which is one of the leading contributors to climate change. Governmental action has also been taken such as a carbon tax and incentivizing big energy companies to move toward cleaner renewable energies. Other mitigation efforts such as moving toward electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency is aiming to increase the share of electric vehicles globally to 30% by 2030. Even with all these reduction efforts made to reduce global warming, without capturing this carbon at the source and sequestering it underground, these efforts will likely not be enough. The ICCP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had backed this assertion stating, some form of Co2 removal would be necessary to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celcius, avoiding the worse effects of climate change. 1

● A shift in focus from limiting the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere to removing the carbon, while also limiting the existing Carbon is extremely necessary for combating climate change. This is why I am proposing a Carbon Capture technology placed on through Carbon Engineering.

Carbon Capture and Storage Proposal

● I am proposing carbon capture technology identical to the one in Texas on both natural gas power plants in VIrginia.

1. Capture Co2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels

2. Comprise it into a liquid

3. Transport it to storage facilities in SouthWest Virginia

4. Store Safely and permanently underground

Stored in deep geologic reservoirs, in the gas fields of SouthWest Virginia.

● Buchanan and Dickenson Counties

● Stored there due to structure, depth and thickness of the underground in area 2

● Not only does it address climate change, but also the socioeconomic issues low-income communities face today. A study published in Environmental Research Letter lends credence to the fact that the largest polluters in the U.S such as factories, warehouses and much more are overwhelmingly located in impoverished and minority heavy neighborhoods. This policy would get make certain no Co2 is admitted in these impoverished areas by the two natural gas plants. 3

● This proposal on just one natural gas power plant is said to be the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars of the road. With Virginia two natural gas plants this would be equivalent to taking around 700,000 cars off the road. This project would be said to extract around 3 million tons of Carbon annually. 4

Additional Considerations

● The potential supporters would mainly be the federal government. The DOE or Department of Energy would be one of the main supporters of this proposal. The DOE has a history with funding projects like these such as the on in Texas. The DOE committed around 400 million dollars toward Texas’s Carbon and Capture Storage Project. The IPPC, EPA, and other federal agencies driven to reducing the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere would also support this proposal

● The economic cost surrounding this proposal could be very high. It is said that such a proposal would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and even up to billions of dollars. The viability of this proposal could be in question, but with the upcoming election and the right person in office who would be willing to fund expensive, but necessary projects this proposal could be accomplished. The governor Ralph Northam could also allocate money from the environmental spending budget as well as implementing carbon tax to get the money to fund this proposal. 5

Recommendations

● This proposal would be implemented by our local government and backed by the federal government.. This proposal will be implemented by money provided by the DOE, other agencies of the federal government, as well as the local government providing funds left for environmental spending. Carbon tax may also have to be implemented, along with grant money provided for construction, research and development,efficient research must also be done in order to lower the cost of construction and allow for the maximum amount of carbon to be removed out of the atmosphere.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1Cho, R., Cho, R., Harris, K., Joe, Bob, Cartwright, C., … Trujillo, J. L. (2019, September 26). Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe? Retrieved from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

2 Cook, P. J. (n.d.). Carbon Sequestration . Retrieved from https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DGMR/carbonstorage.shtml

3 Sherman, E. (2016, February 4). Studies Find Poor Minorities More Likely to Live In Polluted Areas. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2016/02/04/environmental-race-poverty-flint/

4 Palus, S. (2014, July 25). Texas Just Started Building the Largest Carbon Capture Facility Ever. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/texas-building-largest-carbon-capture-facility-eve r-180952169/

5 WA Parish Carbon Capture Project, Texas – Power Technology: Energy News and Market Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.power-technology.com/projects/wa-parish-carbon-capture-project-texas/

Works Cited

Berwyn, B., Berwyn, B., Lavelle, M., McKenna, P., Banerjee, N., Gustin, G., … Bagley, K. (2017, January 5). Energy Department Suspends Funding for Texas Carbon Capture Project, Igniting Debate. Retrieved from https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12052016/department-energy-moniz-carbon-captu re-ccs-climate-change-texas-clean-energy-project Cook, P. J. (n.d.). Carbon Sequestration . Retrieved from https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DGMR/carbonstorage.shtml Cho, R., Cho, R., Harris, K., Joe, Bob, Cartwright, C., … Trujillo, J. L. (2019, September 26) Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe? Retrieved from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/ Palus, S. (2014, July 25). Texas Just Started Building the Largest Carbon Capture Facility Ever. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/texas-building-largest-carbon-capture-facili ty-ever-180952169/ WA Parish Carbon Capture Project, Texas – Power Technology: Energy News and Market Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.power-technology.com/projects/wa-parish-carbon-capture-project-texas/ Sherman, E. (2016, February 4). Studies Find Poor Minorities More Likely to Live In Polluted Areas. Retrieved fromhttps://fortune.com/2016/02/04/environmental-race-poverty-flint

Cutting Back on Natural Gas Consumption

Memo to Solve Climate by 2030

From: Joseph Ivancic

Date: 3/30/2020

Re: Cutting back on Natural Gas consumption

Background
Natural gas is often touted as a cleaner source of non-renewable energy by providers[1], and natural gas consumption in Virginia has been steadily increasing over the past two decades.
- According to the U.S. Department of Energy, natural gas makes up 35% of annual electric power generation in Virginia. Additionally, of the 150 billion cubic feet of natural gas produced in Virginia, eight billion cubic feet is consumed by the state. [2]
- From 2003 to 2018, there was a ten-fold increase in natural gas consumption by Virginia electric power generators. By 2017, the electric power sector accounted for almost three-fifths of the natural gas distributed to consumers in the state.²
Although large-scale burning of natural gas releases less pollutants such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulates than other fossil fuels¹, there are many potential adverse health effects of contact with natural gas.
- According to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, more than 50 percent of American households use natural gas as their main heating source which puts them at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning and gas leaks.[3]
- Colborn et al. (2011) determined that 75% of natural gas product chemicals can cause harm to “the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, the respiratory system, the gastrointestinal system, and the liver”, with “more than half the chemicals (showing) effects on the brain and nervous system”.[4]
With natural gas popularity rising in the face of decreasing coal production in the United States, it is more important than ever to push for aggressive shifts towards renewable energy proliferation. Natural gas negatively impacts the air quality in homes and around communities, with direct exposure and proximity to gas wells potentially causing immediate and long-term chronic health effects[5]. Cutting back on natural gas generation can improve health and push Virginia toward neutrality on climate and energy policy.

Cutting back on natural gas consumption
The gradual reduction of Virginia’s dependency on natural gas should begin with the transition to renewable natural gas. Renewable natural gas sources burnable methane from functioning landfills, dairy farms, and feedlots.[6]
- According to Dominion Energy, converting methane to renewable natural gas captures 25 times more greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere than are released when the renewable natural gas is burned by consumers.⁸
To create access to renewable energy sources, local Virginia governments should follow the guidelines and review the resources provided by the Environmental Protection Agency. Local governments can generate renewable energy on-site, purchase green power through renewable energy certificates[7], or purchase renewable energy from electric utility companies through a green marketing program[8].
- According to the Environmental Protection Agency, investing in renewable energy sources can “reduce a local government’s carbon footprint and air pollution, reduce dependency on imported fuels, protect against financial risks and improve power quality and supply reliability”.[9]
With the efforts of state and local governments to gradually transition from natural gas to renewable natural gas to renewable energy sources such as wind or solar, Virginia will make strides towards “solving climate” by 2030.

Additional considerations
The political feasibility of this proposal, both on the state and local level, is contingent on the support of relevant lawmakers and their constituents. Within the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Mark L. Keam, Delegate Rip Sullivan, Delegate David L. Bulova, and Senator Scott A. Surovell have supported bills of related issues in the past.
Local governments must take special care in reviewing the economic costs of implementing such a plan. Consideration must be made of the costs of different renewable energy technologies, weigh the cumulative costs and benefits of on-site renewable power, and assess available sources of financing and other incentives.

Recommendations
This proposal would be implemented by state and local leaders across Virginia. State leaders would focus on negotiating with large utility companies to limit natural gas contracts while supporting renewable natural gas and other renewable energy technology. Local leaders should assess their own unique options, gaging citizen support and determining the feasibility of on-site renewable power and similar alternatives.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Natural Gas and the Environment NaturalGas.org. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from http://naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas/

[2] State and Regional Energy Risk Assessment Initiative | Department of Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.energy.gov/ceser/state-and-regional-energy-risk-assessment-initiative

[3] Natural gas safety. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.puco.ohio.gov/be-informed/consumer-topics/natural-gas-safety/

[4] Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K., & Bachran, M. (2011). Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 17(5), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2011.605662

[5] Colborn, T., Schultz, K., Herrick, L., & Kwiatkowski, C. (2014). An Exploratory Study of Air Quality Near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 20(1), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.749447

[6] RNG – Renewable Natural Gas | Dominion Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/renewable-natural-gas

[7] Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) | Green Power Partnership | US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs

[8] Green Power Supply Options | Green Power Partnership | US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/green-power-supply-options

[9] Local Renewable Energy Benefits and Resources | Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments | US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources

Need for Urban Green Space

From: Madelyn Boutchyard

Date: March 30, 2020

Re: The need for Urban Green Space

Background:

As time has passed, an increase in global temperature has triggered much suffering on Earth as indicated by severe weather events, rising sea levels, acidification of waterways and unfortunately much more. It is only until recently that humans have come to understand ways to combat climate change, but the hope is that through public education, community involvement, and legislation that solutions will be created and implemented.
It is evident that these negative environmental impacts have been reciprocated to humans as well. Changes in weather patterns have both directly and indirectly affected the physical and psychological health of humans.
Vulnerability to environmental adversities can be overcome by using certain mitigation and adaptation strategies. While combatting climate change will need to involve multiple approaches, this proposal recognizes only the importance of providing green spaces in urban areas.

The Need for Urban Green Space:

Creating green spaces in urban areas will increase human health by promoting nature based stress reduction which has proven to be a successful restoration method.
- According to WHO Office for Europe, “many epidemiological studies have demonstrated various positive health effects of urban green spaces, including reduced depression and improved mental health, reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, improved pregnancy outcomes and reduced rates of obesity and diabetes”.[1]
Creating green spaces in central urban areas will provide sociological growth by:
- Making a space that welcomes the idea of community and togetherness[2]
- Providing a means of positive interpersonal relatability
- Foster a passion and understanding of the need for nature at all levels of growth.
Diane Regas, CEO of the Trust for Public Land has observed the ability that public parks have to ease the adverse effects that climate change brings about. Not only do parks provide amenities such as basketball hoops and playgrounds, but they also provide relief from intense heat, flooding and poor air quality. Studies conducted in Washington D.C. by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have shown a direct correlation between intense heat and dense urban areas. It can be noted that certain parts of the city were cooled by as much as 17 degrees Fahrenheit by large parks. Cooling urban areas can help reduce the more than 600 annual deaths caused by heat related illness.[3]
Cities like Houston are home to many neighborhoods located on floodplains and are regularly impacted by high waters. One report put out by The Nature Conservancy offered evidence that supports green spaces as being less costly than installing infrastructure such as pipes. Information like this has driven Houston and other cities to start working closely with their city planners to design and build trails, parks, and green spaces in order to combat flooding in an affordable fashion. [4]

Additional Considerations

Political feasibility: Urban green space planning would be implemented on a local level and accomplished by means other than law.
There are always costs associated with the creation of these types of projects however many organizations can provide funding. For example, “The Trust for Public Land helps state and local governments design, pass, and implement legislation and ballot measures that create new public funds for parks and land conservation. … Every $1 invested in this program has generated more than $2,000 in new public funds.”
Of the few economic evaluations that have been published, one suggests that an increased number of people walking, and cycling could result in large financial savings.
The use of exotic plants and the implications of matching aesthetics are some of the few negative impacts of urban green spaces, however with the proper knowledge of biodiversity and botany urban green spaces can be ethically planned. Carbon sequestration through the use of plant life is one of the driving factors for reducing air pollution and green spaces offer a perfect environment to sequester.

Recommendations

Local governments coupled with community outreach groups can put forth efforts to increase green areas within the community and keep parks in good condition.
In order to enact this proposal, more awareness needs to be spread about the benefits of being in nature and taking periodic breaks from the material world. By understanding the need for stress reduction through nature, individuals will begin to join committees within their communities to open and maintain more green spaces.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Citations

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/climatechange/health_impacts/index.cfm

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/climate-crisis-cities-turn-to-parks/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_11#copyrightInformation

https://books.google.com/books?id=9GHW24KCuBYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=how+green+spaces+are+combating+climate+change&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwmcXGncDoAhXDmnIEHcfvBbAQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.tpl.org/how-we-work/fund

[1]

[4]

Carbon Capture Plants

Russell Pettaway

3/16/2020

Carbon Capture Plants

Background

● There are many issues facing our society today, and among all of them may be the most

important one, climate change. Climate change, mainly anthropogenic climate change

has already had a drastic effect on life today from increasing temperatures leading to the

melting of ice caps to the rise in sea levels across the world, there is no denying climate

change can have many unforeseen climate changes if proper efforts to mitigate climate

change are not enacted.

● Although there have been mitigation efforts have been enacted such as moving to

renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and many more.

These efforts have to lead to reduced emissions in greenhouse gases which is one of

the leading contributors to climate change. Governmental action has also been taken

such as a carbon tax and incentivizing big energy companies to move toward cleaner

renewable energies. Other mitigation efforts such as moving toward electric vehicles.

The International Energy Agency is aiming to increase the share of electric vehicles

globally to 30% by 2030. Big Gas Stations such as Wawa are adapting to this change

with the development of new charging stations. Even with all these reduction efforts

made to reduce global warming, without the direct removal of carbon from the

atmosphere the other mitigations efforts, would not be enough without that direct

removal of carbon. The ICCP, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had backed

this assertion stating, some form of Co2 removal would be necessary to keep global

warming under 1.5 degrees Celcius, avoiding the worse effects of climate change.1

● A shift in focus from limiting the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere to removing the

carbon, while also limiting the existing Carbon is extremely necessary for combating

climate change. This is why I am proposing a Carbon Capture Plant through Carbon

Engineering. Instead of Industry Plants that produce carbon emissions, a plant that

captures Carbon and sequestrates it could be extremely beneficial in the fight against

climate change.

Carbon Capture Plant Proposal

● Carbon Capture Plant, the direct air capture of Carbon through Carbon Engineering. This

policy would push for the construction of Carbon Capture Industry Plants, which would be powered by 100% renewable energy sources, around the United States. The

process of capturing Carbon works by way of large fans which pull atmospheric air

through a device called the contactor. The air gets sent through a honey-combed

structure, upon which a liquid capture solution is rained down on this air. The Carbon

molecules in the atmospheric air sent through honeycombed structure stick to the liquid

capture solution. The carbon in the air is then made into calcium carbonate pellets,

which can be stored underground or used for fuels, while the transition to renewable

sources is in progress. The construction of these plants would remove carbon out the

atmosphere or at the least move toward climate neutrality.

● Not only does it address climate change, but also the socioeconomic issues low-income

communities face today. A study published in Environmental Research Letter lends

credence to the fact that the largest polluters in the U.S such as factories, warehouses

and much more are overwhelmingly located in impoverished and minority heavy

neighborhoods. This policy would push, as well as incentivize local governments to build

the carbon capture plants in these impoverished communities where carbon levels are

exceedingly high. 2

● This process/proposal is said to reduce between 2 and 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide a

year by the year 2050 and that is just with the sequestration of the carbon captured. To

compare the world’s power plants produce around 32 gigatons in 2017. The ICPP also

estimates that this carbon capture and storage aspect can result and the removal of

between another 0.5 to 5 gigatons of carbon by 2050.

Additional Considerations

● The potential supporters of this proposal of federally mandating the construction of

Carbon Capture Plants around the U.S would be backed by the Federal Government

including agencies such as the EPA, IPPC, and other Environmental committees and

agencies dedicated the reduction of Carbon Emissions in the United States. Not only

would part of this proposal be federally funded, but also backed by certain oil and gas

companies. Study shows this would indeed be funded by oil giants such as Chevron,

BHP, and Oxy.3 These companies would indeed back such as proposal as it actually

could benefit these gas companies by providing pellets of carbon which could be refined

and use as gasoline in vehicles, which in turn would at least to a carbon net approaching

zero. This would also lead to the extraction of more oil from Petroleum wells. By 2040 it is still estimated that 50% of the energy needed will still come from oil and gas meaning

oil will still be in high demand. Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S has also

said he would invest in a proposal such as this with a large sum of money and

resources.4

● The economic cost surrounding this proposal could be very high. It is said that such a

proposal would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and even up to billions of dollars,

which seems very high, but it is proven that private sectors such as big oil and gas

companies as well as other investors will bear some of this cost. Proposed legislation

coming from senators with fossil fuel interests would also direct the Department of

Energy to spend up to 5 billion dollars toward research and development of carbon

capture plants through the fiscal year if 2024. An increase in taxes for the average upper

and middle-class families may also be necessary to launch such a proposal. The federal

government would also provide grants to companies in order to launch this proposal.5

Recommendations

● This proposal would be implemented by the Federal Government and backed behind

giant oil companies and investors. This proposal will be implemented by money provided

by grants to each individual state whereby 2050 at least half of states should have one if

not more of these plants. Along with grant money provided for construction, research

and development, certain lands must be allocated for these plants. Preferably near high

levels of carbon, such as factories, warehouses, and much more. Efficient Research

must also be done in order to lower the cost of construction and allow for the maximum

amount of carbon to be removed out of the atmosphere.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Cho, R., Cho, R., Harris, K., Joe, Bob, Cartwright, C., … Trujillo, J. L. (2019, September 26).

Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe? Retrieved

from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

2 Sherman, E. (2016, February 4). Studies Find Poor Minorities More Likely to Live In Polluted

Areas. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2016/02/04/environmental-race-poverty-flint/

3 Clancy, H. (2019, April 18). A conversation on carbon capture: Carbon Engineering’s CEO on

commercialization, costs. Retrieved from

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/conversation-carbon-capture-carbon-engineerings-ceo-commer

cialization-costs

4 Bill Gates-Backed Carbon Capture Plant Does The Work Of 40 Million Trees . (2019).

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s&t=459s

5 Cho, R., Cho, R., Harris, K., Joe, Bob, Cartwright, C., … Trujillo, J. L. (2019, September 26).

Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe? Retrieved

from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

Works Cited

Bill Gates-Backed Carbon Capture Plant Does The Work Of 40 Million Trees . (2019).

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s&t=459s

Cho, R., Cho, R., Harris, K., Joe, Bob, Cartwright, C., … Trujillo, J. L. (2019, September 26)

Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe?

Retrieved from

Can Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe?

Clancy, H. (2019, April 18). A conversation on carbon capture: Carbon Engineering’s CEO

commercialization, costs. Retrieved from

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/conversation-carbon-capture-carbon-engineering

s-ceo-commercialization-costs

Sherman, E. (2016, February 4). Studies Find Poor Minorities More Likely to Live In

Polluted Areas. Retrieved

fromhttps://fortune.com/2016/02/04/environmental-race-poverty-flint

Addressing Misinformation about Climate Change

April 4^th, 2020
Re: Addressing Misinformation about Climate Change through Scientific Integrity and Academics.

Section 1 Background:

The negative effects of climate change are being observed all over the globe, from the arctic shrinking to the seafloor dissolving[1]. In response, society has called for climate action to be taken by all the global countries.
However, not everyone is on board with addressing climate change. An opposition, consisting of right-wing think tanks, politicians, and other individuals that work for the interests of fossil fuel companies, seek to block climate action.
The goal of the opposition with their misinformation campaign is to stall and block climate action policies like the ones written by everyone here, in order to protect the interests of themselves or fossil fuel industry.
As the climate movement makes progress, the amount and volume of misinformation cranked out by the opposition will increase.
Many experts worry that the increasing presence of negative information will make people less likely to trust academic sources and engage with facts[2]. Misinformation will ultimately hurt the progress of climate action, as public support will be drawn away from the movement and towards the opposition, which will allow them to implement policy that favors the anti-science movement.
Climate and Environmental Scientists play a key role in drafting policy and plans related to addressing climate change and sustainable development. This makes them prime targets for the anti-science movement’s climate denial campaign.
- The attacks often involve expensive litigations, death threats, and direct harassment[3] with the goal of besieging the publications of scientific findings to ultimately mislead the general public’s opinion on the issue.
- One case in Virginia involved climatologist Dr. Michael E. Mann (author of the ‘hockey stick’ hemispherical temperature graph[4]) of the University of Virginia, Attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and the American Tradition Institute. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a professor’s documents at the university were exempt from FOIAs, citing the need to protect individual freedom and privacy, in addition to the malicious nature behind the FOIA requests[5].
Currently, the federal scientific integrity act that would protect scientists from motivated interference for their work is stalled in congress[6]. While current attacks on scientists occur more subtly[7], the opposition shows no sign of disappearing quietly and will continue and evolve their attacks to achieve their goals.

Section 2: Combat Misinformation by via Policy and Engagement

Protect the researchers working at the Virginian state level from retaliation/interreference for their work.
- Currently, Virginian FOIA laws exempt university academic records from FOIA requests[8]. However, there are no exemptions for state agency researchers working in Virginia’s state government[9].
Prohibit the suppression or investigation of public/private researchers by agencies.
- Prohibit the use of governmental subpoenas and investigations to suppress and to malign researchers of their work[10].
Make Climate Change a mandatory subject to be taught in all taxpayer funded schools in Virginia
- Students around the world are demanding climate action by their government leaders to protect the environment and planet, 8 out of 10 teachers support teaching climate change in schools[11], and 4 in 5 parents (86% total) wish that teachers did[12].
- This would also reduce climate denial by way of addressing misinformation and promoting greater awareness of the subject. Educated people are less likely to fall for fake news than uneducated people.
- If people are not educated in this topic, there will be little room to improve the community. Nobody will be interested in reducing human-CO2 emissions if they are convinced by the climate denialist movement that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy/hoax.
- More than 40 California school districts have adopted climate resolutions into their curriculum, and Rep Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) introduced a plan a plan to encourage the teaching of climate change in U.S. schools[13].

Section III: Additional Considerations

Political Feasibility
1. Democrats would be supporters of this bill, while Republicans would be opposed to it, citing big government and their climate change denial beliefs.
2. Conservative school districts in Virginia would oppose this mandated change in education.
3. Heartland Institute, E&E Legal, Cato Institute, and other right wing think tanks would oppose this policy.
4. LCV, Sierra Club, Zero Hour, various climate grassroots groups, and public/private researchers would support this bill.
Economic costs
1. Educators often do not have the resources to teach climate change, and schools cannot always afford it (17% lack materials)¹⁰.
2. Getting educators up to speed with environmental literacy will cost taxpayer money (on the local district scale).
3. Prohibiting the suppression of public/private researchers will cost taxpayer money, in terms of the money spent on court cases.

Section IV: Recommendations

Amend the current Virginia FOIA act to exempt state researcher’s data, records, or communication (sic) from FOIA requests if malicious reasons are determined to be the cause.
Pass a Virginia state-level Scientific Integrity Act just like the one on the federal floor to protect state government scientists from motivated interference for their work[14].
Pass a state law that would prohibit the use of federal investigations/subpoenas to investigate the work/data of private/public researchers if malicious intent is found.
- The meaning of malicious intent will be determined by the ruling of previous court cases⁴, and the considerations of CSLDF, Union of Concerned Scientists, university officials, and independent legal attorneys. The history of the entity making the request will also be taken into consideration.
- Malicious intent in this context: the aim to violate one’s individual/intellectual privacy/property, especially in a digital world where things can easily be taken out of context and therefore used to malign researchers.
- Allow state judges to dissolve cases against state and private level researchers if malicious intent is found.
Pass an anti-doxing bill for Virginia like what Kentucky (SB 182) has proposed under the premise of protecting individual (alongside intellectual in this case) privacy[15].
- To address concerns about prosecution of victims who name their perpetrators, the law will be written to prosecute those who dox with bad intent to begin with, rather than ones enacting justice for a crime already committed. It will only prosecute those with malicious intent (meaning defined previously)¹².
Pass a bill to mandate teaching climate change in all public schools in Virginia
- Add human-caused climate change to the science curriculum on the Virginia Department of Education curriculum framework (currently it is not there), tiering it appropriately for the K-12 grade levels, and to the Virginia SOLs/other standardized tests[16].
- Acknowledge the social justice/generational equity aspects of the issue, such as how minority communities are impacted by climate change/anthropogenic pollution.
- Get input/consultation from relevant scientists at Universities/institutions as necessary to design the standards for learning climate change.
  - Provide a medium for experts from education, environmental and atmospheric science, and other relevant fields to input their opinions and considerations to make the new standards as effective as possible¹².
- Include interactive learning/policies under this new standard, such as field trips, interaction with climate nonprofits, locally sourced lunches/produce, and specific actions such as reducing carbon emissions on campus, to address the concern of there not being enough resources to teach a new subject¹².
- Encourage the creation of new classes in middle/high schools that will allow students to learn and interact with climate change.
- Provide resources of local school districts/teachers who are unsure how to teach climate in schools:
  - Names of websites that give tips/methods to teach climate (Doing a lab, showing a movie, citizen science, etc.¹⁰). Also, the names of nonprofit organizations/activists who can help.
  - Provide Seminars which can get teachers up to speed on teaching climate change and environmental literacy, like what was done in Oakland, California¹².