Carbon Crusaders

(I originally posted this entry at http://www.together.com/us/blog).

The threat of rain had been looming in the forecast for the past week leading up to today’s event and the skies were grey upon arrival to Times Square. However, the greenery that colored Military Island remained dry even though the sun didn’t shine.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, Climate Group CEO Dr. Steve Howard, JP Morgan Chase Head of CSR Bill Daley and ICLEI Executive Director Michelle Wyman took the stage, together with host Simran Sethi, to the sounds of cabs, pedestrians and the New York hustle and bustle. It seemed fitting that the event took place in the heart of America’s largest city, making everyone aware of the fact that nothing had stopped around us, as with the global challenges of climate change.

Dr. Howard began by introducing Together.com (and the Climate Group) as a global initiative, bringing businesses, individuals, NGO’s and political figures to the table, in order to provide simple, affordable solutions to climate change. Over the past year, Howard explained, through Together’s U.K. program, over 20,000,000 actions responsible for reducing over 500,000 tons of carbon. Even more impressive is the international scope Together is striving to cover, currently including Europe and the Americas, and expanding within the next year to India and China; environmentalists and economists unilaterally agree that as the huge populations of China and India begin to adopt the western, consumer lifestyle, the ecological consequences new goods to meet growing demand will be devastating if we do not accommodate and change our behavior now.

…and Mayor Bloomberg expressed those exact sentiments. New York City is not waiting for federal mandates or promising for change by 2050. Instead, Bloomberg instated PlaNYC, a set of over 125 initiatives in NY designed to green the Big Apple. A few highlights include the planting of one million trees, LEED certified city buildings, efficiency bulb retrofits, hybrid taxi fleets, and more. Bloomberg also acknowledged other cities and states doing their part, acting now, including Miami, Chicago, Seattle and of course California. (Even though he was unable to attend, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a note saying he would work with us all to say “hasta la vista” to climate change).

Later in the event I had the fortune of speaking directly with Mayor Bloomberg, and when I asked if he had a specific thought for today’s blog, he said that it is time to recognize that “damage has been done and we need to act.” We don’t need to “close down economies, but react now, swiftly.” Tomorrow is simply not an option.

Bloomberg’s spirit of “no time for later” continued through the speaking event. I was excited to hear Secretary Ban Ki-Moon’s words regarding the U.N.’s own plans for climate change. As an institution responsible for overseeing such an unprecedented range of international issues, the U.N. is uniquely positioned to understand the potential economic, social and political consequences of failing to act on climate change. As a call to action, Secretary Moon announced a U.N. report designed for low carbon titled “Kick the Habit” and stated that climate change could only be addressed by “concerted, collective action.” Secretary Moon stressed climate change was an issue too large for one person, country or company to address alone…only together can we achieve results.

Rounding out the morning’s event were Mr. Daley and Ms. Wyman, neither of whom I knew very much. But, they represent two extremely important players in the fight against climate change: the corporate voice (JP Morgan Chase as founding corporate partner) and the non-profit partners (ICLEI as founding non-profit partner). Mr. Daley described JPMC’s green programs including 20% energy reductions but 2012 and green branches. However, most significant was Mr. Daley’s recognition that addressing climate change is not just a moral obligation, but an intelligent, profitable business strategy. The sooner businesses follow JP Morgan Chase’s (and other Together partners’) lead in investing in and setting climate goals, the sooner we can reverse the idea that environmentally sound practices are irrecoverable expenses.

In turn, Ms. Wyman echoed Mayor Bloomberg’s words, committing to increase cities’ involvement in the Together project; as a goal she stated 1000 cities would be actively participating within one year. Ms. Wyman’s organization holds the key to large scale involvement from the political level over the next year. Federal measures will need to pass congress, bureaucratic hold ups and cost considerations, where as city level plans can take advantage of simple, immediate solutions for residents and municipality controlled regulation. Good luck!

On the whole the event was a positive intersection of industry, government and activist groups. Effectively, without the participation of one of these groups, climate change solutions will remain limited. The only remaining (perhaps obvious) piece of the pie is you and I…individuals committed to changing our daily habits, purchasing habits and most importantly, to incorporating environmental considerations into all of our decisions. Only together we can change the course.

Recently I ran across a website dedicated to Wal-Mart’s “Live Better Index.” The index, launched in 2007 is comprised of five products the company believes to be indicators of green trends. The five products are:

1. Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)
2. Organic milk
3. Concentrated/reduced-packaging liquid laundry detergents
4. Extended-life paper products
5. Organic baby food

(This year they added green cleaning products and sustainable coffee to the list, but sufficient data has not been collected to discuss these with any accuracy).

From 2007 to 2008, green consumer product adoption rose 66% in total, with paper products experiencing the strongest rise of over 68% (see Live Better Index site for updated results.) Further behind, CFL’s saw an increase of nearly 20%, which is promising and expected with WalMart’s aggressive push to sell these sustainable bulbs.

Of course this is a simplified index, but it does serve some purpose. Principally, I would make two observations. First, there is a clear trend between health/wellness and green. Organic milk for instance  is championed for its health benefits, but it serves the dual purpose of more sustainable cattle farming.
Many people praise the LOHAS market, and this is a clear indicator of its strength and growth.

A second observation is that price plays a factor, but not unilaterally across the board, as other factors are obviously involved. Looking at the different products one by one. CFL’s are easy; they save you money and energy over their lifetime. Organic milk, the poster child for organic products, is more expensive (sometimes double the price), but it has been one of the most storied organic product for some time. Paper products are an easy, visible way to become more sustainable…plus, pricing has dropped significantly for sustainable paper products. Baby food was the only product the experienced a slight drop in adoption, but it was very small; I have to research more, but my gut instinct tells me baby food, as a staple for parents, could suffer from the price discrimination. Finally, cleaning products have also become much more affordable and mainstream, which I believe to be the source of their increase.

On the whole, I retain a strong belief that most people would, if given the choice, would maximize their sustainable purchases. However, as the price differential remains significant, consumers continue to minimize their total costs instead of their environmental shopping footprint, while purchasing one or two sustainable products to feel good and make a difference. I remain confident that as supply increases to meet demand we will see adoption rates rise as prices fall with the majority of green vs conventional products.

There has been much discussion about the contribution of increased ethanol and bio-fuel production to the recent rise in global food prices, which have sparked riots abroad and threaten to reverse the progress towards ending world hunger. While there are clearly connections between the developed world’s demand for these fuels and global food prices, there are other significant factors at work including, higher energy costs, increased global demand and water shortages abroad. However, as C. Ford Runge, an economist at the University of Minnesota told the N.Y. Times, “Ethanol is the one thing we [The U.S. Government] can do something about. It’s about the only lever we have to pull, but none of the politicians have the courage to pull the lever.” The inconvenient truth is that when Oil is $116/barrel, it is economics and political lobbies, not the environment, that are driving developed countries, like the U.S., to divert a 1/5th of their corn harvest towards inefficient ethanol production. Ironically, the effects of higher food prices disproportionately felt abroad, have been blunted at home by the nature of American consumerism, which provides a “branded” cushion between the farm and the single-sized products (and prices) that we see at the grocery store.

The Fuel-Food Price Connection

The global prices of corn, soybeans, wheat and rice are all interconnected (see graph below) - they create the base of a dynamic food pyramid upon which prices of all food staples that lie above (meat, poultry, pork, farmed fish, dairy and egg products) are dependent. Trade policies, domestic subsidies & taxes and numerous other factors distort these connections, but basically, when corn prices double in the United States (the largest grain exporter in the world) due in part to increased demand for ethanol, other food prices around the world shudder.

Corn, Soybean and Wheat Prices (last 10 years)

Other Factors Contributing to Food Price Increases

The mandates in Europe and the United States for increased mixes of ethanol and bio-fuels in transportation fuels and a $.51 U.S. subsidy for ethanol production have helped drive up the prices for corn and soy beans, which in turn have helped push other food prices upward. However, there are also other important factors driving up prices that cannot be neglected:

1. Increased demand for meat in the developing world, most notably China, where a greater substitution of grain for meat has meant 700 grain-based calories are being used to generate 100 beef-based calories.
2. Water shortages abroad (most notably Australia, historically the second largest exporter of wheat) has meant less grain harvested and traded.
3. Increased costs of oil and energy which has contributed to increased fertilizer, farming and transportation costs.
4. The steady depletion of global grain stocks (the carryover stocks from the years before), which usually helps alleviate shortfalls.

Ironically American Consumerism Has Blunted the Domestic Blow

While food prices have doubled in various places throughout the developing world, the average bundle of groceries in the U.S. increased only 5% in 2007 (though milk and eggs have increased 29% and 36% , respectively) - It is important to note that these are record increases, and for many Americans on the margins, backbreaking and bank-breaking. Still, the discrepancy between skyrocketing global commodity prices and the smaller relative increases in U.S. stores is important and deserves explanation.

Only a portion of the prices we see at the grocery store (varying on the type of product) are dictated by cost of a product’s actual raw ingredients. In fact, “farm value” of the commodity raw materials accounts for only 1/5^th of total food costs in the U.S. (down from 2/5^th’s in the 1970’s), while processing, packaging, marketing/branding, transportation and warehousing account for the rest. Ironically, it is the “soft” value of products and the nature of our advertising-based consumerism that has protected Americans from feeling the full force of these global price increases. It is in part the money spent on marketing those leprechauns and bunnies, which has provided distance from farm to shelf and some cushion to soften the blow. If not for that, Americans would be asking a lot more questions about the connections between ethanol and food prices and wondering about the box of $10 cereal they just pumped into their tank.

Related Stories:

Earth Policy Institute

Recent NY Times Article

The Christian Science Monitor

Reinventing the wheel is a difficult task. Katie F. recently posted an interesting article on Earth2Tech (subsection of uber venture blog GigaOm) titled “10 Green Social Networks You Should Know”. We were definitely honored to be selected as one of the ten, although a little disappointed when Katie said only ZeroFootPrint had a viable business model. We do have a viable business model, and unlike ZeroFootPrint, it does not revolve around selling much-debated carbon offsets. (See my recent post on Carbon Offsets and their validity).

However, most importantly, we do not see ourselves as a social network. If you have had an opportunity to sign up and test the site, you will see MakeMeSustainable’s primary emphasis is on the carbon management system we’ve developed to help people calculate and track their carbon reductions and financial savings based on daily lifestyle actions. We are a social software with some social networking features, but we have not emphasized our networking capabilities over our footprint reducing tools.

At SXSW Interactive last month I saw Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s keynote address. Zukerberg stressed that Facebook wanted to provide a widespread platform for others to use in developing their own applications to access the millions of Facebook users. Later at the Facebook party I had the opportunity to talk with Zuckerberg about Facebook’s environmental standing and whether the site had any plans to develop an environmental plan or strategy. His response was rehearsed and to the point…Facebook wants to give other’s the tools to develop the environmental tools that can change the world. In essence, Facebook is going to socially and ecologically responsible by making it easier for you and I to do so. Of course, Google through OpenSocial (Orkut, LinkedIn, etc), MySpace and others are close on Facebook’s heels in opening their own API’s to achieve global paradigm shifts.

What implications does this little dialog have for MakeMeSustainable, CarbonRally, Care2, Greeniacs, and every other green leaning burgeoning social networks? I think it shows that people will increasingly be loyal to one or two social networks for pure networking and you will have to provide value other then simply being a green network that cares. We will be working within the frameworks of MySpace and Open Social (we’re already on Facebook here) and continuing to increase the carbon and financial specific tools differentiates MakeMeSustainable from other green social networks and carbon calculator websites.

In closing, I support the open API trend. I don’t think there will be another Facebook, MySpace, Friendster,  LinkedIn, etc. However, I don’t support Facebook’s hesitancy to scrutinize what types of applications are allowed on the site. Socially conscious applications and those that provide significant value should be highlighted and supported. Otherwise, they can not claim to be changing the world, but rather, they are lubricating the process by which trivial and preying applications can access huge numbers of people. FacebookGreen? MySpustainability? I’m all for it.

Lately I’ve been asked by numerous groups of people, from friends to reporters about whether or not I support carbon offsets. In the process of answering these questions, I’ve found that most of people do not understand the nuances of carbon offsets, the risks and rewards, and/or the difference between a carbon offset and its sub-category the renewable energy credit (REC).

First, a carbon offset defined at the broadest level is: a financial tool designed to help reduce the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. When you and I purchase an offset, it goes to funding a project that (in theory) reduces the greenhouse gas we emit today or emitted in the past.

Secondly, offsets originate primarily from three types of projects.

1. Industrial energy efficiency projects: In this case offsets are direct subsidies to an entity retrofitting, upgrading or installing equipment to reduce their total energy use. In layman’s terms, a large factory wants to install all new lighting and machinery, but fears it will be too expensive without additional capital. They work with a third party (like the EPA) to certify the equipment they install will reduce the plant’s total energy, therefore the total emissions, and allocate the number of offsets that corresponds to the difference in carbon emitted before and after the equipment installation.
2. Carbon absorption projects: Here an organization plants trees, grows algae or other organic material (could be artificial I suppose?) which absorb greenhouse gases from their surroundings. This of this as the re-forrestration rather then rain forest clearing. The principle issues which arises is whether these projects are accurately measured. Questions regarding the albedo effect (albedo = the level of reflection/absorption of the sun’s rays by an object), or on the subject of additionality (additionality = whether the project would have happened regardless of the subsidy, e.g. trees replanted after hurricane Katrina are not additional).
3. Renewable energy credits: REC’s are subsidies that go to renewable energy producers (wind, hydro, solar, etc) to cover the gap between the cost of producing the energy and the price at which the electricity grid purchases the energy (this is a flat rate set by the government and power distribution companies). In this case the reasoning is, that every unit of energy produced from a renewable source corresponds to a unit of energy that does not have to be produced from a traditional fossil fuel source. One of the largest issues with REC’s in the U.S. is that there is no single certifying body, and REC’s from power installations can be falsely or poorly measured.

Which of these offset sources is the most reliable? None are perfect, each having its flaws. Furthermore, the entire offset market within the U.S. is traded on a voluntary, unregulated market, which leaves room for error and dishonesty.

However, if we have to choose, I feel the REC’s provide the most advantage for the consumer and the environment. Each REC corresponds to a unit of energy and therefore reduces the energy demanded from traditional fuel sources, while simultaneously increasing the amount of renewable energy supplied.

Finally, do I really support offsets in general? Yes, but only after purchasers have actively reduced their individual energy demand and done everything possible to reduce wasteful energy behavior. Offsets are not indulgences for our eco-sins. They are not a permit to pollute, license to drive a gas guzzling car or permission act carelessly with our earth’s precious resources and environment. Offsets are simply a way of raising awareness, helping develop a consumer mindset of eco-friendly action and a method of funding alternatives to the status-quo dirty energy. Offsets are only a compliment to the larger solution of responsible actions, environmental awareness and significant government intervention.

This byline was originally featured on FoundRead here.

A mere 3 weeks before SXSW, MakeMeSustainable.com (MMS) was nominated as a web award finalist. Before we could celebrate, we panicked! None of us had been before. So with almost no warning, little preparation, a gigantic stack of business cards and suitcases filled with t-shirts and jeans, we hopped a flight to Austin to see what opportunities SXSW would bring. This is our account of our first pilgrimage to Web2.0’s latest confab-Mecca.

I. Observations:

1. It almost hurt to see the sheer amount of waste in the SXSW schwag bag. Besides most of it being junk, it represents an environmental disaster for every conference of this type (Here’s our full post on all the SXSW junk).
2. SXSW is not a place to find funding. It is the perfect place to encounter your next evangelist. You’ll see innovative web ideas, get press coverage, find new collaborators and partners. Still, as far as we could tell, not many companies launched or re-launched at SXSW. The established come to SXSW to mingle.
3. Excellent place to find contrarian advice for your startup. In fact, the established come to SXSW to give advice as much as to help themselves, and it’s good much of the time. 37 Signals’ Jason Fried and Bill McKibben gave great presentations.
4. Geeks are not dorks. We know how to party. More importantly, we know how to party, and then go home and write a blog post for an hour.

II. Opportunities:

1. Startups need to answer an essential question: “what does a geek want?“
2. VC’s and Angels should come to SXSW to begin to understand the power of tech-evangelism.
3. Traditional marketing materials were unnecessary. We expected more interactive, online marketing and you cannot imagine a greater accumulation of PDA’s and laptops and an audience more plugged-in. We hope that next year conference materials will be made available exclusively online with a brief 3 second ad in order to view…after all, that’s greater than the amount of time most conference attendees spent looking at fliers.
4. Be a sponsor! The food inside the convention center was awful. If your startup needs to advertise, do it by sponsoring a caterer, or have a display with free food available.

MMS’s Score Card

• 6 “official” press meetings, about 6 unofficial
• 4 hours sleep/night
• 100 business cards collected…the good outweighed the useless!
• 5 panels attended (37 Signal’s Jason Fried and Bill Mckibben take top spots)
• 1 panel sorely missed: [our own Katie Fehrenbacher’s panel] Green Software, Really?
• $7: the total amount spent on drinks and food at networking events
• 70% chance of returning next year

We had no plans to attend the conference. We weren’t featured on any panels. We are a small, angel-funded start-up, whose web product is still in its early public Beta stage. It was an honor and surprise to be nominated for the web awards, but any young web company can benefit from the SXSW adventure.

When we learned three weeks ago that we’d had been selected as finalists for a web award, we were ecstatic. Here was not only the excuse we’d been looking for to come down to SXSW, but also a great opportunity to push sustainability at one of the country’s most respected interactive, film and music festivals. We sped up our preparations for an interactive display that we are launching with bands and events this summer. The SXSW “Interactive Carbon Tree” would act as a powerful tool for SXSW conference attendees to participate in grass roots green initiative.

h

What is alarming is that SXSW is attempting to address sustainability issues, but just not doing a very good job of it. They are purchasing renewable energy credits to offset the conference’s emissions – now standard for any conference wanting to brand itself as “sustainable”. They are also however, consuming the equivalent of acres and acres of trees in useless promotional materials - the life blood of sponsorship commerce that drives these events. We needed only to peek behind the curtain of the gift bag desks to see an entire warehouse filled with thousands more – so big that SXSW volunteers drove around on pitchfork cars to grab bags and bring them to the desks well out of view (not to worry, the electric vehicles’ emissions were probably offset). More troubling, was that these bags were filled with 12 pounds of absolute crap - Isn’t this an INTERACTIVE conference (ok for music and film), you’d be hard press to find a group of people less inclined to look through pounds of paper flyers, handouts and stickers:

The truth is, this is standard for events and making events emerald “green” isn’t going to change the world – the people who attend them and the companies they run will. That is exactly why we wanted to get people engaged in an initiative we designed to reduce our collective environmental impact here and beyond these two weeks in Austin (read more…).

Unfortunately due to the sponsorship issues we were unable to work with SXSW on the initiative because we didn’t have the kind of cash lying around necessary to do anything official…oh, and when we tried to promote the Green Initiative guerrilla style at the event, a SXSW employee was kind enough to tell us security would be called if we didn’t cease doing so, because “people pay a lot of money to promote at SXSW.”

As a result of getting shut down by “the man”, we are looking to promote the event virtually. We have developed html widgets for the SXSW group that track all the users and their respective carbon reductions in real time. If you are interested in mobilizing greening of SXSW from the grassroots, you can help the initiative by embedding the following widget in your blog or site and spread the word:

Code: <script type=”text/javascript”

src=”http://makemesustainable.com/badge/group/105.sxsw></script>

In a recent NPR Democratic debate, candidates we’re asked to identify the “toughest issue” they faced. Senator Obama recently was quoted saying, “The issue of climate change.” Excellent answer. Now let’s see how his actions face up to his words.

According to Grist.com Senator Obama supports a cap-and-trade system, improved auto fuel efficiency, increased production of biofuels and nuclear energy as part of the general mix.

But what about the Senator’s thoughts on coal? Most environmentalists will agree that continuing to depend on coal as a primary energy source will inevitably lead to ecologically disastrous consequences. The dirties fossil fuel, coal remains king in the US and China, fueling the majority of energy demand. Obama supports “clean-coal”, meaning coal whose emissions would be scrubbed then pumped underground. In addition, he support coal-to-liquid fuels, which currently are no better, and can be even worse, then current coal alternatives. The senator supports the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, which would all but guarantee increased emissions. Of course, Obama’s home state Illinois is rich in coal reserves, which politically Obama is not ready to give up.

Until Obama shifts the discussion away from future technologies and unproven methods, such as “clean coal,” he can’t be considered a good environmental candidate. Current renewable technologies are capable of ramping up the level of clean energy in this country. With the disappearance of subsidies for coal and oil, alternative energy sources can become economically viable. This is the direction a candidate needs to be thinking, not directly back into the pockets of big coal.

The absurd irony of global warming is that while the wealthiest nations are disproportionately responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, it is the poorest countries that will suffer the most. The effects of global warming will be most pronounced and acute in Sub-Saharan Africa, the island nations, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and low-lying areas like Bangladesh. These nations have limited resource and do not have the infrastructure to deal with the natural disasters and changing climatic shifts. Arch-Bishop Desmond Tutu in a recent plea to the U.N. to take decisive action on Global Warming dubbed this gap, “Adaptation Apartheid.”

That truth is what inspired us. Growing up, Environmentalism had seemed a white, upper-middle class and decidedly un-urban cause. It brought to mind the token bearded and bespectacled Vermonter fighting the encroachment of modernity in a series of impassioned letters, and while I could appreciate it, it never moved me viscerally the way stories on Apartheid in South Africa, violence and poverty that was a result of the inequalities suffered in South Central, L.A., or genocide in Rwanda. Environmentalism did not bear the same immediate gravity. I thought it was about trees and nature shows on penguins and polar bears that featured tuba music. Earth Day was cool, but when I was ten I wanted a power to the people, fist pumping in the air day. That began to change when the realities of globalization started to bring to light once again the connection between the exploitation of natural resources and human life.

The summer of 2005 brought the issue home to me in a fundamental way. That summer I met a nine year old boy in Tamil Nadu. He had lost his father and mother in the Tsunami. He took me to his home in a fishing village, a series of tin roofed thatched houses a hundred yards from the shore. I spoke to his grandfather who described in horrifying gestures the speed and violence of the wave that washed away half the village and his daughter. Later in July, my wife and I were trapped on a bridge in Mumbai as floodwaters rose. A few hours’ earlier, kids were playing in the street delighting in what appeared to be a familiar monsoon downpour. But the rain did not stop. It was the highest rainfall in 24hours recorded in Indian history, and people drowned. Cows tied to the houses disappeared under the rising waters. Mumbai is not a rural coastal town. It is a bustling vibrant modern metropolis and it was caught completely off guard. We waded miles through the floods in the middle of the night but were able with the power of our American dollar to spend the next night in a hotel with hot water and electricity. We lay in bed transfixed to BBC watching people huddled on roof tops only a few hundred yards away. We came home to Katrina. I am not suggesting that by tackling global warming we will resolve all fundamental inequality and suffering on this planet, I am suggesting that if we don’t it will not matter too much anyway, because the stress caused by global warming will exacerbate existing tensions to an unthinkable extent.

I am an Environmentalist because it has everything to do with humanity. Global warming has changed environmentalism. The new environmental movement is concerned with protecting natural resources and species diversification, but ultimately it is about something much more basic and universal, it is about survival.

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report was released Saturday November 17, with three major conclusions: global warming is “unequivocal,” it is most likely caused by human factors and in order to avoid disastrous effects of climate change reductions in greenhouse gases need to start immediately. According to a NY Times article, Rajaendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC stated, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” He echoes a bevy of other scientists including Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs who said, “We can’t afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can’t afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now.” The message is clear. Real action, not just words, are needed now in order to avert dire consequences.

The White House press briefing remained vague and unassertive on the matter. When questioned about the President’s vision of successes and benchmarks the administration hoped to achieve at the upcoming Bali climate talks, Chairman Connaughton emphasized, “…if you’re looking for a benchmark there, I would encourage you to look for a broad agenda on adaptation, as opposed to a narrow focus.” Despite strong language and convictions on the issues of climate change, the administration characteristically sidestepped the main issues, simply restating the President’s loose commitments to the environment. Yet again, (like Kyoto) mandatory emissions caps and goals don’t seem likely to be ratified by this administration.

What’s been clear from the beginning of this process for many of us is that the cost to implement climate mitigation is substantially worth the cost of dealing with the potential consequences. In the IPCC report it is plainly spelled out: “There is high agreement and much evidence that mitigation actions can result in near-term co-benefits (e.g. improved health due to reduced air pollution) that may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs.” (Link to the IPCC summary here). Not to mention climate change catastrophes are most likely to effect the poorest regions of the world, even though the richest regions are most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, mitigation is actually dealing with underlying equalities and potential human costs.

Domestically I would love to see one or all of the Presidential candidates make the IPCC report a central issue in their campaigns. Hard, mandatory goals need to be set by the next administration in order to avoid a climate meltdown. Global warming mitigation is not a political decision here, but an economic, societal and global crisis.