Response to Swarthmore's Board's Decision Not to Divest from Fossil Fuels

by Duncan Gromko

Swarthmore’s Board of Managers published an open letter on their decision not to divest from fossil fuels on Wednesday this week, which argued that divestment would have no measurable effect on halting climate change and would pose an unacceptable risk to the College's finances. For a little context on the divestment issue, see my earlier post. Students in Swarthmore Mountain Justice and other advocacy groups first raised this issue and I applaud their commitment to social justice. Interacting with them over the past several months has been inspiring.

The decision to divest is a serious one and I’m glad that the Board is not taking it lightly. They are responsible for ensuring the financial health of the school, which directly impacts the quality of education that students receive. However, the Board’s arguments are problematic for a number of reasons.

1. The Board argues that divestment is not an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: “Symbolic action is not our only option [for reducing greenhouse gas emissions], and we are convinced it is far from our best option for mobilizing public opinion as well as for having real impact on the fossil fuel industry. President Obama's recent initiative on climate is just the latest-though the most dramatic-illustration that government action to control greenhouse gas emissions is on the table. It seems the time is right to pursue legislative change aggressively.”

It is strange that the Board uses Obama’s climate initiative to argue that divestment is not an effective strategy because, when announcing his initiative, Obama himself called for divestment: “Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. Invest. Divest.”

The potential impact of divestment is much greater than the effect that it would have on fossil fuel companies’ bottom line. The Board’s letter calls divestment “symbolic” in a dismissive way, but symbols matter in policy and politics. Policy is not made in a vacuum – real climate change legislation will only happen if there is some political calculus pushing politicians in that direction. Divestment would provide “social proof” that supporting climate change action is socially acceptable. Obama asked for this help: “What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up and speak and compel us to do what this moment demands. Understand, this is not just a job for politicians.” I argue that Obama only made such a bold speech and policy initiative because green groups have put pressure on him, organizing in large part around “symbolic” issues like divestment and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

2. The Board dismisses the moral benefits of divestment: “Divestment's potential success as a moral response is limited-if not completely negated-so long as its advocates continue to turn on the lights, drive cars, and purchase manufactured goods, for it is these activities that constitute the true drivers of fossil fuel companies' economic viability-their profits.”

Ideally everyone would eliminate their use of fossil fuels, but it is nearly impossible to do so as an individual. Individuals are so constrained by our economic system that one cannot participate in society without using fossil fuels – I’m using carbon-derived fuel to write this response! Individuals changing their behavior would be a great step, but we need systematic change to address climate change in any real way.

Divestment would not constrain Swarthmore’s endowment in the same fundamental way that forgoing fossil fuels would constrain individuals. Swarthmore’s endowment can fulfill its purpose with or without investments in fossil fuel companies. Swarthmore Mountain Justice expressed the difference between individual consumption and endowment investment eloquently in their response to the Board: “Swarthmore is a relatively small consumer of fossil fuels, but, given its size, holds a disproportionately large amount of moral and financial capital as a prestigious and well-funded institution.”

Moreover, whether or not divestment advocates eliminate their personal carbon footprint has no bearing on the moral calculus of divestment. If the Board believes that profiting from fossil fuel production is immoral, it should divest regardless of what others do. “The moral man looks for injustice first of all in himself” – Bayard Rustin.

3. The decision to invest in managed hedge funds seems to preclude divestment from any company. Is there no company or sector that would induce the Board to consider divestment? Hypothetically, suppose we found that the College was investing in a company that produced chemical weapons? The Board’s investment strategy makes it impossible to affect the social impact of the investment. I’m not advocating that the endowment be transformed into a social impact fund, but surely the Board would like to have some control over its investments.

4. The best argument the Board has is the cost of divestment. Swarthmore invests a significant portion of its endowment in managed funds, which have historically provided the College with excellent returns. The Board is claiming that these funds would not want to manage Swarthmore’s money under the divestment restrictions, so the endowment would have to be invested in poorer performing funds. Reducing Swarthmore’s endowment and by extension, the services it is able to provide to its students, would be a huge loss. It is not lost on me that my education, for which I received substantial financial aid, enabled me to do the work I am today to combat climate change and environmental degradation in my job. However, the Board’s cost analysis does not consider a number of points.

First, the Board’s estimation of future returns from managed funds investments are based on past returns. Past performance is no indication of future results. Bloomberg recently published an article entitled “Hedge Funds Are for Suckers,” in which they wrote: “…hedge fund performance lagged the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index by approximately 10 percentage points this year, although most fund managers still charged enormous fees in exchange for access to their brilliance.” Although this statistic is cherry-picked and probably exaggerates the recent failures of hedge funds, the increasing popularity of hedge funds has slowly squeezed their competitive advantage, reducing their ability to generate profit.

Second, the Board’s analysis does not fully consider alternative investment options. Articles by Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and HIP highlight the growing number of responsible investment funds. Swarthmore’s significant financial muscle would strengthen these funds. It is also possible that, by taking the lead on this issue, Swarthmore could bring other like-minded colleges to the table.

Third, the Board fails to consider other costs and benefits of divestment. A divestment announcement would generate good publicity for the College, which would have a real monetary benefit.  How many prospective students writing their “Why Swarthmore” applications would list a decision like divestment as a reason for attending? It would certainly reaffirm my decision. The Board also leaves out the impact that divestment would have on alumni giving. I’m not willing to give my money to a fund that invests in fossil fuels; I would start giving to the College again if it divested. Younger generations of Swarthmore alumni are not the largest donors to the College, but I believe that the divestment issue is alienating many current students and recent alums, diminishing future giving.

In rejecting divestment, the Board offers alternatives. I thank them for doing so as it demonstrates their desire to continue the dialogue on this issue. They have asked for other suggestions; I have a few:

·         If divestment is a step too far, an intermediate option could be assessing the environmental footprint of the existing portfolio. MSCI has developed a portfolio analysis tool that evaluates investments based on their environmental and social impact. I also encourage the Board to review the growing number of responsible investment options I mentioned above and whether these might offer better returns than what the Board assumes in its cost of divestment analysis.

·         Enable students to be effective political actors. The Board argues that now is the time to push for comprehensive climate change legislation; what better way to do so than through the power of students? I witnessed immense passion amongst Swarthmore Mountain Justice and other student groups in May. In its Peace and Conflict Studies and Environmental Studies programs, Swarthmore has a number of capable professors to lead these efforts. I’m sure that other schools in the region would be thrilled to participate in a Swarthmore-hosted conference on political activism.

·         It seems that there is serious mistrust between students and the administration. Although I am focused on divestment, I am concerned by how alienated and hurt students feel regarding a number of other issues. The lack of support for victims of sexual assault and minorities are two issues that stick in my mind from the meeting with Board in May. I encourage the College to pursue greater transparency and student engagement in all of its decision-making – not just with divestment.

While I disagree with the Board’s decision, I respect the importance of protecting the financial health of the College. It is a difficult decision. However, the urgency of the situation demands a reconsideration of the divestment option. A decision to divest would send a powerful signal. The Board is correct that the College should support climate change action in other ways, but these two things are not mutually exclusive. The College can do both. 

This letter was first published at the Daily Gazette; check it out here.

Civil Disobedience and the Keystone XL Pipeline

by Duncan Gromko

More than 100 people showed up at the State Department early Monday morning to protest the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama and the State Department have been considering the approval of the pipeline since 2011, repeatedly delaying their decision. In a recent speech, Obama said that the pipeline will not be approved if it has a significant impact on climate change.

The protestors were planning to block the entrance to the State Department and risk arrest from the Washington, D.C. metro police. In the past, Keystone critics have been arrested and these arrests brought attention to the environmental risks of the pipeline. However, on Monday, the police did not oblige and the protest received little attention.

Nearly a month ago, 54 people were arrested inside the lobby of the D.C.-based firm Environmental Resources Management (ERM). The group was protesting the consulting firm’s involvement in putting together the State Department’s report on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline. The report found that the pipeline would not lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that the tar sands moved by the pipeline would be extracted whether or not the pipeline is approved (here is the best analysis I’ve seen on the possible impact of the pipeline).

In addition to challenging the content of ERM’s report, the protestors claimed that ERM did not acknowledge a conflict of interest. Analysts that worked on the ERM report had previously worked for TransCanada – the company building the pipeline. The Department of State is now conducting an inquiry into whether or not that conflict exists.

As a supporter of more aggressive steps to address climate change, I’ve been thinking about the effectiveness of these actions while reading “Waging Nonviolent Struggle,” a tome by Gene Sharp on the history of civil disobedience. Sharp considers the history of nonviolent social movements, different tactics used, and their effectiveness. I think his key point is the following: “The persons who are at any point the rulers do not personally possess the power of control, administration, and repression they wield. How much power they possess depends on how much power society will grant them.” According to Sharp, nonviolent action is a movement’s way of taking back that power.

These Keystone protests and the climate movement in general sometimes differ from many of the nonviolent case studies in Sharp’s book: the Russian Revolution, Indian Independence Campaign, California Grape Worker’s Strike and Boycott, Ending Bus Segregation in Montgomery, etc. The actions taken in Sharp’s examples tend to directly express the protestors’ vision of the change they would like to see. In India, for instance, people collected and traded salt in defiance of British law. Grape pickers in California refused to work. Pipeline opponents have been arrested for actively blocking the construction of the pipeline. In comparison, the protestors at the ERM building were arrested for unlawful entry.

Indians wanted independence from the British, so they protested their laws. The situation for climate advocates is more complicated. Their goal is not to overthrow Obama. Instead, they want to change a carbon-based energy infrastructure on which we all depend. To get to the climate protests, activists drive, take trains, and even fly – all acts that emit carbon and work counter to their end goal. These actions do not undermine their cause. They simply illustrate our country’s total dependence on energy from carbon sources and the absence of alternative transportation choices.

The ideal climate nonviolent struggle would be an economic boycott of carbon (like the divestment push), where participants refused to use energy from carbon sources. Doing so would directly reduce emissions and take away power from fossil fuel interests that profit from carbon consumption. Some people have chosen this route, and I’m sure that most of the arrestees consciously reduce their carbon impact. But it’s nearly impossible to participate in American society without using carbon. For the millions living in suburbia and rural areas, cars are a necessity. Every time I turn on a light (or the computer used to write this blog), the electrons come primarily from carbon generating sources. In most cases, giving up carbon would mean withdrawing from society. Plus – and perhaps more importantly – no one would notice the act of not emitting carbon.

So climate advocates are left with options for nonviolent action that are less illustrative of their goals than those in Sharp’s book. A lunch counter sit-in actively demonstrates the change the protestor wishes to see by breaking the law he or she wants to remove. Being arrested at ERM shows protestors’ anger at the company’s role in encouraging the pipeline to move forward, but the act itself doesn’t illustrate what the protestors want. The law being broken – unlawful entry – isn’t the one they want repealed.

David Roberts

Climate change advocates are working in a complicated, complex setting. A great article I read last week expressed how nearly impossible it is to evaluate advocacy. Change from advocacy is non-linear – little or nothing might happen for decades, followed by a huge breakthrough (see marriage, gay). David Roberts writes a lot about the importance of social proof – demonstrating to the general public that it is socially acceptable to have a particular opinion – and these protests provide that proof. Keeping climate in the news cycle changes minds and generates interest.

And advocates have made huge strides. The pipeline decision still sits on Obama’s desk, years after it became an issue. The President released an ambitious climate plan in a speech where he explicitly encouraged climate advocates (by using the word “divest”). The integration and importance of carbon in our lives means that it’s likely to be a long, uphill fight.  But in Sharp’s words, advocates are slowly taking back power from the fossil fuel industry.

Population Projection Revised Upwards...Again

by Duncan Gromko

The following was cross-posted with the Public Education Center's DC Bureau, which you can find by clicking here.

The UN now estimates that there will be 9.6 billion people by 2050, which is a revision upwards from their 2010 estimate of 9.3 billion. For some environmentalists, this is a scary thought. A simplistic take on natural resource use suggests that more people mean more consumption and more pollution.

Estimating global population, let alone projecting population two generations from now, is a tricky business. While some groups estimated that the world passed seven billion people on October 31, 2011, others thought that the milestone was passed in March of 2012. Even the world’s best censuses have a 1-2 percent margin of error.

Source: DSS Research

The 2050 projections have been revised upwards because of changing demographic trends in the developing world. Projections assume that global fertility rates will converge to 2.1 children per woman and a stable population. However, fertility rates have remained higher than projected in many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Below is a chart showing the countries with the largest upward projections (as a percentage of their population).

Source: New Security Beat

Accurately predicting population decades from now is difficult, but the multiple upward revisions in recent years make for a worrying trend. While growth in some countries is more or less reflecting demographers’ predictions, population growth in other countries continues to spiral upwards. Nigeria, which doesn’t even make the above chart, has had its 2050 projections revised from 289 million in 2008 to 390 million in 2010 to 440 million this year. What will the next projection be?

Most of this growth is happening in developing countries, as fertility rates have mostly stabilized in the developed world.

Source: Learner

As a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco, I worked on family planning projects. Many of the women with whom I spoke struggled to access birth control on a consistent basis. What’s more, doctors often did not take the time to explain how to use birth control. One woman with whom my colleague spoke asked why the birth control pill her husband was taking wasn’t keeping her from getting pregnant.

While use of contraceptives has increased, access to birth control remains a huge barrier in many parts of the world. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 215 million women want to delay or cease childbearing – about one in six women of reproductive age – but do not have the means to use birth control. Helping these women would be a huge win not only for them, but also for the environment.

Slowing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 1.1 billion tons per year by 2050. Family planning is an inexpensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists normally talk about the “abatement cost” of a particular technology or behavior change, i.e. how much each ton of greenhouse gas reduced will cost. For instance, the abatement cost of solar PV was estimated at around $15-20 per ton of CO2 by McKinsey in 2009. Tom Lovejoy estimates that the abatement cost of reducing carbon emissions through family planning is $4.50 per ton. If carbon pollution is all you care about, reducing population growth through family planning is cheaper than reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions (although both are needed).

It’s important to note, however, that despite increasing populations in developing countries, these countries are largely not responsible for historical or future greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, China, and the European Union all have relatively stable populations, but are responsible for most of global emissions. The USA’s per capita emissions was around 17.2 tons per year in 2009, while Nigeria’s was 0.6 tons per year.

Of course, impact on climate isn’t the only environmental consequence of a growing world population. The areas with the highest rates of population growth also tend to have the greatest pressures on local natural resources. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are already facing challenges from water scarcity and deforestation with their existing populations. What’s more, much of this growth is happening in urban areas where infrastructure is overwhelmed by the growth explosion. Slums and urban poverty are the result.

Support for family planning and educating women – which is associated with lower fertility rates – has benefits for local populations and the earth. Giving women the tools and knowledge they need is an important goal that I think is often overlooked by many environmentalists.

Obama's Big Climate Plan and Speech

by Duncan Gromko

President Obama gave a major climate change speech (full video and transcript here) and released a Climate Action Plan on Tuesday. It’s just one speech and there is a lot to work to implement the plan that he has laid out, but the plan and the speech far surpassed my expectations. There isn’t much more that the Executive Branch can do on climate change without help from Congress.


Here’s the biggest climate news from the plan and the speech: “I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.” The rhetoric here – “dumping of carbon pollution” – is amazing because he’s talking about carbon in the same way that we normally talk about local pollutants. This is the single biggest step the administration can take without Congress; WRI estimates that such regulation can make up 48% of the emissions gap between business as usual and the administration goal of reducing emissions by 17% by 2020. So it’s a big deal. However, neither Obama’s speech nor his plan specifies how strict these new standards will be or how they will be implemented and there is sure to be legal and political challenges to the new standards. The specifics of the plan will end up determining the final climate impact, and Obama has not yet made this clear; all the plan says is: “The President has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to build on state leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies including many actions in this plan.” If you’re curious on more details of how power plant regulation could work, here is an NRDC report on how this could work.

Source: change.gov

Regulating carbon pollution from power plants is just the start. For a full list of initiatives contained in the plan, see Wonkblog, Grist, or Climate Progress; I’m just going to list a few of the most important.

Supporting existing efforts, the plan promises to better measure methane emissions from natural gas extraction via the EPA. However you feel about how fracking could destroy local water sources, any climate benefits from switching from coal to natural gas (coal is much more carbon intensive than natural gas) could be lost if methane leakage is not controlled.

Obama declared a goal of doubling electricity fueled by renewable energy by 2020. This is tough for the President to affect with Congressional support, but Obama promised to approve permits for renewable energy on public lands that would supply 20 gigawatts of additional energy. He also said the federal government would set a new target of sourcing 20% of its energy from renewable sources (up from 7%).

Adaptation to climate change is another large component of the plan. Most of the concrete steps relate to planning continued research for specific vulnerabilities to climate change: learning from Hurricane Sandy and other tropical storms, resilience in the health sector, assessing agricultural vulnerability, managing drought, reducing wildfire risks, and preparing for future floods. Climate change is happening and the plan recognizes this reality.

Last (of the points that I’ll discuss) is a renewed effort to promote international action on climate change. One proposed way to do this is to combat short-lived climate pollutants such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have sever climate impact and are much more prevalent in developing countries. Another focus point is reducing emissions from deforestation, which amount to as much as 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Last, Obama also said that the USA will not support coal fired power plants in developing countries (which would appear to be at odds with current World Bank policy).

The Really Surprising Stuff

In addition to these more mainstream actions, Obama discussed a few issues that are near and dear to the hearts of climate advocates. First, regarding the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama said: “Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” I never expected him to mention Keystone and his statement Tuesday will make it difficult (but not impossible) for him to ultimately approve the Pipeline. Second, he spoke directly to climate advocates in the following sentences: “Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth…Make yourself heard on this issue.” Divestment from fossil fuels and the Keystone XL Pipeline have been two of the major issues adopted by 350.org and other climate advocates. With these remarks, Obama is speaking directly to those involved in advocacy and encouraging their actions. I think the subtext here is that he needs support to continue his climate initiatives. I was surprised.

A Couple Caveats

The big caveat is the lack of specificity as to how the plan will be implemented, particularly with EPA regulation of power plants. There are no specific standards mentioned and, although this aspect of the plan could have enormous impact, it could also have little impact if standards aren’t strict enough.

The other issue in the speech that makes me uneasy is the President’s full embrace of natural gas: “And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.” I think the climate benefits of natural gas (and fracking) are debatable. And I think that there isn’t enough information about the impact of fracking on local water sources. Increased fracking will likely hurt some people. Nick and I are planning a big story on fracking and all its ambiguities, so I won’t get into them just yet.

All in All…

I was amazed by the ambition of the plan and the speech. It comes about five years later than I wanted and still isn’t going to be enough to allow the USA to meet emissions guidelines from the Kyoto Protocol (20% reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by 2020), but in the current political climate, I couldn’t have hoped for any more. I guess that’s a sign of how far expectations have fallen that I see doing less than the minimum as exceeding expectations.

I’m torn. On the one hand, this is a big step and Obama (as well as all the advocacy groups that have been pushing him for years now) deserves credit for making decisions that another president (e.g. Romney) wouldn’t have. I hope that he feels support from environmental groups to counterbalance all the negative things that will be said in the coming weeks by fossil fuel advocates. This speech and this plan should be celebrated. On the other hand, the devil is in the details with this plan and implementation will determine just how much it ends up cutting emissions. Obama needs to hear from green groups that climate can’t be something that he simply makes a big speech about every several months and then ignores. It’s also hard not to be disappointed that it’s come to this; that Obama had to work around Congress because Congress refused to address the issue. I can’t imagine a more ambitious plan, but it still isn’t ambitious enough.

Book Review: Corporation 2020

by Duncan Gromko

The following was cross-posted with the Public Education Center's D.C. Bureau, which you can find by clicking here.

A recent TEEB for Business report estimated that the world’s 100 largest corporations do $7.3 trillion in damages each year to the global environment. These “externalized” costs are not borne by the business itself, but by society as a whole. Changing the way that corporations do business is critical to solving global environmental crises such as climate change. In the book Corporation 2020, Pavan Sukhdev presents a vision of how corporations can make this change.

Author of Corporation 2020: Pavan Sukhdev

A 1919 Michigan Court ruling formalized the role of a corporation: “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.” As long as this norm holds, corporations will continue to pursue private profit at the expense of the public good. Sukhdev writes: “According to urban legend, Willie Sutton, the immaculately dressed bank robber who robbed more than a hundred banks over a forty-year career, was once asked why he robbed banks and succinctly replied, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’” Since corporations don’t pay for pollution and other socialized costs from their activities, there is a profit motive to pursue polluting activities.

Sukhdev says that the modern corporation has four distorting characteristics: size, leverage, advertising, and lobbying. The number of “large” (greater than 0.1% of global GDP) corporations has grown from under 20 in 1970 to over 120 in 2010. Being large allows corporations to reduce transaction costs: rather than trading with other corporations, a corporation can simply redistribute resources internally. Sukhdev calls the modern corporation a “price arbitrageur par excellence” because it obtains labor, capital, and resources wherever they are cheapest to be sold wherever demand is highest.

The second characteristic, leverage, is related to size. Taking on debt allows a corporation to grow. Debt is available to larger corporations at a cheaper price, creating an advantage for large corporations while squeezing out smaller ones. When corporations with lots of debt become very large, they can be “too big to fail” because they pose a systemic risk to the economy. As we saw in the financial crisis, the government may have to prop up a failing big corporation – another benefit of size.

Save the World (photo credit Victor Grigas)

Advertising “converts wants into needs, sometimes creating new needs that are nothing more than brand desires, with no functionality.” Even though advertising makes up a relatively small part of global spending, it has an enormous impact on creating demand for consumer products. Greater consumption, in turn, puts more pressure on natural resources.

Last, corporate lobbyists persuade government to create preferential laws, regulations, taxes, and public investments; the goal is to realign public institutions to benefit private interest. For example, when the Waxman-Markey “cap-and-trade” climate change bill was being considered by Congress, energy-intensive industries spent over $100 million on public relations and hired 2,340 registered lobbyists to protect the fossil-fuel industry. A watered down version of the bill was able to pass the House, but not the Senate. Lobbying in natural resources sectors is a clear case of redistributing public goods to private interests; in the United States, mining companies are given rights to mining resources at below market rates.

When a corporation is large, it has advantages in leverage, advertising, and lobbying. This creates a positive feedback loop where the efficiencies and power of a large corporation allow it to become even larger. As a corporation grows and grows, it has (in most, but not all cases) larger and larger negative externalities. The legal structure of the modern corporation and the tools it has to make profits are incompatible with addressing environmental crises.

So what’s to be done?

Greenpeace.svg

A big part of Sukhdev’s message is how and why corporations voluntarily reduce the negative externalities associated with their business. One of the largest destroyers of tropical forests in the world, the Indonesian pulp and paper company APP, announced a new “no deforestation” policy. The commitment came after a long campaign by Greenpeace successfully vilified APP. APP saw that the costs to its brand name and reputation were greater than the benefits from continued deforestation. APP is one of many companies that have taken steps to reduce its environmental impact in order to improve its public image.

Asia_Pulp_&_Paper_logo

Other corporations are taking a more holistic perspective and starting to account for the damage they do to the environment. In 2011, PUMA, the shoe company, measured their supply chain’s impact on water, land-use change, air pollution, and climate change. These negative externalities were valued at $188 million and were concentrated early in the company’s supply chain. PUMA says it will use this information to reach its goal of reducing its impact across its supply chain by 25 percent by 2015. Measuring externalities is the first step for companies to reduce them – “you cannot manage what you do not measure.”

However, shaming companies into better behavior and improved environmental accounting tools will only get us so far. Sukhdev argues that “despite the correlations between sustainability and corporate success, endogenous change (the idea that corporations can and should drive sustainability ‘from within’ because it is good for them) may not be enough.” The raison d’etre of a corporation is to make its shareholders profits, regardless of other costs.

Sukhdev calls for a number of solutions. Ending subsidies for companies that do environmental harm is a first step towards leveling the playing field. Next, taxing goods according to the damage they do to society would discourage harmful economic activities. A coal power plant, for instance, would have to pay for the social cost of the carbon emissions (amongst other damages) associated with power production. Finally, Sukhdev makes the case that the structure and objective of a corporation needs to be completely reformed. Rather than pursuing profit for shareholders, corporations should serve the public benefit – a social corporation. Increased regulation and creative taxation can help to reduce corporations’ impact on the environment, but Sukhdev argues that current corporate model is fundamentally incompatible with sustainability.

While I mostly agree with Sukhdev, he doesn’t provide a convincing road map of how we’re to get from the shareholder, profit-driven model of the corporation to his social corporation. As Corporation 2020 recognizes, large corporations have an enormous amount of economic and political power that they are unlikely to give up voluntarily. In addition to increasing a corporation’s size, advertising and lobbying also give it immense influence. Bold leadership, both in the public and private sectors, is a good start, but won’t be enough to get to the radical changes that he is proposing. My feeling is it will require pressure from millions of people who have never heard of Sukhdev or his book.

DC Tree Canopy Gets a "B-" from Casey Trees

by Duncan Gromko

Tree Planting (Source: Rosser1954)

Every year, Casey Trees grades progress on protecting Washington DC's tree cover. Based upon four criteria (tree coverage, tree health, tree planting, and tree protection), the city received a B- for 2012.

Before I get into the details of the report, a little background on trees in urban areas and Casey Trees.

While forests in remote areas are hugely important, urban trees play a critical role in improving well-being for city dwellers. From Casey Trees: "Most Washingtonians know that trees cool streets and our homes, but energy savings is just the start. Trees slow storm water, clean our air, increase property values, and create a less stressful environment that benefits human health. In short, trees make cities more livable." Among these many benefits, mitigating the urban heat island effect is probably one of the most important contributions that trees make. On average, cities are 2-5 degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer than rural areas. For DC residents that have experienced our brutal summers, imagine how much worse they would be without trees in the city! Another benefit that I want to highlight is absorbing water, particularly during storms. In Washington, for anyone who lives in Bloomingdale (or other low lying areas), the flooding you experience is directly related to the lack of tree cover (and high proportion of impervious surfaces).

There's a lot of research done to put a dollar sign on all these values. In New York City, the 600,000 street trees provide an annual benefit of $122 million, which is five times the cost of maintaining them. In Portland, trees increase property values by $1.1 billion - maintenance costs are an annual $4.6 million. Presence of street trees in east Portland added an average $8,870 to the sale price of a home.

In Washington, the total tree coverage is 36%. A large portion of tree canopy coverage comes from Rock Creek Park, but this statistic also counts the many street trees and smaller parks throughout the city. While more than one third may seem high, in the 1950s the canopy was 50%. The loss in tree canopy is mostly due to urban development and pests and diseases that kill trees.

Compared to other cities, 36% is pretty good. Of the 20 biggest US cities, only Albuquerque, Atlanta, Nashville, and Pittsburgh had greater canopy coverage than DC. Surprisingly, Denver, with less that 10%, has the least canopy coverage. Another important statistic is a city's impervious surface cover because it predicts how much storm water will be absorbed into the ground and how much ends up in the sewer system. Roads, sidewalks, roofs...basically anything concrete is impervious. 41% of DC is impervious. New York City has the most impervious cover with 61%, while Nashville has the least, with 18%.

One more background paragraph before I get into the report. Casey Trees is a non-profit in the city with the goal of increasing tree canopy to 40% (this goal has also been endorsed by Mayor Gray's Sustainable DC Plan). In addition to producing reports like the Tree Report Card, Casey Trees does actual tree plantings and lobbies the city to protect trees. Participating in the tree plantings is how I first got involved with Casey Trees and, on a personal level, digging in the dirt on a beautiful DC day is one of the most pleasurable ways to spend a Saturday morning. If you live in DC, I recommend checking out Casey Trees.

Now for the report. I'll go through the four categories one by one. Casey Tree gives each category an individual grade, which adds up to the overall grade.

For tree coverage, the city got an A-. 36% coverage is pretty good, and not far away from Casey Trees's goal of 40%.

For tree health, Washington got a B-. The biggest threat to trees' health is invasive insects, and mostly the Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB). Up to 35% of Washington's trees are vulnerable to the ALB. The beetle has plagued Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, but has not yet been found in Washington. However, given the proximity to other infected areas, it's likely that the city will be infected. The city currently has no plan to deal with ALB, which is a primary reason for the lower grade.

In tree planting, the city got an A+. 10,404 trees were planted in Washington in DC in 2012. Considering that, in order to meet its goal of 40% total tree cover coverage, the city must plant 8,600 trees per year, this is one area for celebration. Of those 10,000+ trees, Casey Trees planted 15%. The National Park Service planted 27% and the Urban Forestry Administration, of the Department of Transportation, planted 26%.

By far the worst grade is in tree protection, for which the city received an F. Clearly, this is Casey Trees' main gripe with the city government. There are three reasons for this poor grade. 1) It's too easy for property owners to remove trees. Under the Urban Forest Preservation Act (UFPA), a property owner has to give a convincing reason to remove a tree. Yet most property owners that applied to remove trees were granted the request. 2) Lost trees are not being replaced. The UFPA requires that trees that are removed be replaced. However, Washington does not monitor the survival of replacement trees so there's no way of knowing how successful this effort is. 3) Money from the Tree Fund is not being used well. When a property owner illegally removes a tree, he/she must pay a fine to the Tree Fund (which is used to plant more trees). Again, the city is not monitoring the health of trees planted through the Tree Fund.

What's to be done? Washington faces a challenge to preserve its tree canopy while population growth in the city places greater pressure on trees. If the Mayor's Sustainable DC plan is properly implemented, then 40% tree canopy is a possibility. However, there are few specifics supporting the Sustainable DC plan - it's more of an aspiration statement than an actual policy - and it's likely that tree cover in Washington will continue to decline, unless Casey Trees' recommendations are adopted.

It's a tough balance for the city, which wants to increase its tax revenues and provide space for incoming residents. While the rest of the country struggles with the recession, the federal government makes Washington relatively recession-proof; Washington has received more new denizens than any other US city for four straight years. This places huge pressures on the city and its tree cover. But if Washington and Mayor Gray want to protect quality of life and the long-term attractiveness of the city, they must balance these pressures against protecting the canopy.

Divestment Push Gaining Momentum

by Duncan Gromko

Swarthmore Mountain Justice Logo

10 cities committed to divesting from the 200 largest fossil fuel companies today. Mayors from Seattle WA, San Francisco CA, Boulder CA, Madison WI, Bayfield WI, Ithaca, NY, State College PA, Eugene OR, Richmond VA, and Berkely CA joined together to make the announcement. In a movement that has been slowly gaining momentum over the last months and years, this is a huge step forward.

Mayor Mike McGinn of Seattle said: “Divestment is just one of the steps we can take to address the climate crisis. Cities that do so will be leaders in creating a new model for quality of life, environmental sustainability and economic success. We’ve got a head start on that here in Seattle, but there’s a lot more work to do.”

Here's a brief history of the divestment movement:

In November last year, Unity College announced it was divesting. I recommend reading all of President Mulkey's call to divest, but here is an excerpt: "Higher education is positioned to determine the future by training a generation of problem solvers. As educators, we have an obligation to do so. Unlike any time in the history of higher education, we must now produce leading-edge professionals who are able to integrate knowledge from multiple disciplines, and understand social, economic, and resource tradeoffs among possible solutions. Imagine being a college president and looking in the mirror twenty years from now. What would you see? Would you be looking at a professional who did his or her best to avert catastrophe? For me, the alternative is unacceptable."

Other schools have joined Unity. Hampshire college has an investment strategy to only invest in socially responsible corporations. Sterling College in Vermont announced on February 2 that it was divesting. The Santa Fe Art Institute of New Mexico announced divestment on February 15. The College of the Atlantic made its announcement on March 11. The divestment push has also gone international, with the Australian National University announcing that it would divest from the natural gas giant, Metgasco. Additionally, several schools are seriously considering divestment. Most recently, the Brown University oversight committee, which is charged with ensuring that the University's investments are in line with its with its ethical principles, voted unanimously to to recommend that the University divest from fossil fuels.

In addition to divestment commitments, discussion of the issue has led to continued discussions of universities' role in supporting fossil fuels. Most notably, Harvard's student body has pushed its administration to divest. This led to an awkward moment for Harvard, where its Vice President reluctantly accepted 1,300 student and alumni signatures supporting divestment. At NYU, students and alumni met with administration officials to demand divestment. Similar discussions are happening at UPenn, Stanford, the University of Michigan, the University of Vermont, the Rhode Island School of Art and Design, and the University of California, San Diego. At Swarthmore College, there was a planning meeting for students urging for divestment, which received TV coverage from MTV.

Over 300 universities and municipalities have public campaigns to shame the fossil fuel industry. The series of op-eds and articles cited above represents considerable involvement from young adults. While the 2008 push for cap-and-trade was dominated by industry insiders, this is clearly an "outsider" movement.

Divestment (and the Keystone XL pipeline) is the opportunity to create that passionate base and send a message that there is a political cost to inaction on climate. It can turn fossil fuel companies into social pariahs. Even if the only thing that comes from the divestment push is a conversation about the irreparable harm that fossil fuel companies are doing to our livelihoods, that is a great outcome.

AND, there is a moral case to be made here. Tobacco, apartheid, fossil fuels, etc. whatever. Personally, I don't want to profit from things that cause others harm. Universities should be moral examples for the young adults they are shaping.

A final, new angle to the divestment campaign is that there is a "carbon bubble:" fossil fuel investments are incompatible with mitigating climate change. The fossil fuels reserves counted on as assets by companies will become worthless if climate change is to be mitigated. If you believe in climate change and have faith that there will be a response to mitigating it, investing in fossil fuels is a bad business decision.

So what is to come of this? Bill McKibben brings up the immense powers that the divestment movement is up against:

"We've watched great cultural shifts and organizing successes in recent years, like the marriage-equality and immigration-reform movements. But breaking the power of oil companies may be even harder because the sums of the money on the other side are so fantastic – there are trillions of dollars worth of oil in Canada's tar sands and the North Dakota shale."

Despite this challenge, divestment advocates are optimistic about turning fossil fuel companies into social pariahs:

"The fossil fuel initiative may be more akin to divestment campaigns targeting tobacco companies. Just as those campaigns tried to link tobacco companies with the health effects of smoking in the popular consciousness, the current campaign wants to tie fossil fuel companies' reputations to droughts, rising sea levels, and the obstruction of climate action."

In sum, the divestment movement has quickly changed the conversation and involved young people in advocating for climate change action. The announcement today is a huge victory for the campaign and hopefully just the start.

How is the Keystone XL Protest Affecting the Broader Climate Movement?

by Duncan Gromko

350.org

Over 1,000,000 comments have submitted to the State Department, asking for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to be stopped. The comments specifically address the State Department's Environmental Impact statement for the pipeline, but, like the years-old stand against the pipeline itself, they represent a growing movement demanding action on climate change. Latest to comment on the Environmental Impact statement is the EPA, which delivered an excellent critique. 

Nick and I attended an interesting debate last week (hosted by Chris Mooney of Mother Jones), featuring May Boeve of 350.org, Michael Grundwald of Time Magazine, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, and David Roberts of Grist. May, Michael G, and David are outspoken supporters of the protest against KXL, while Michael L has argued that the pipeline is the wrong fight. There has been lots of in-fighting amongst environmentalists on the actual carbon impact of the pipeline and thus whether or not it was worth protesting.

What amazed me most about the debate was that not one of the speakers addressed the merits or climate implications of the pipeline itself. This reflected the consensus that the pipeline has become a symbol for the environmental movement. As Bryan Farrell wrote:

"But these critics [of the anti-Keystone movement] are missing something vital about the anti-Keystone movement: It was never about just a pipeline. [Bill] McKibben and a handful of others had another, less talked about goal—to remake the environmental movement into something far more active, creative, and formidable for years to come."

As an 350.org organizer, May attested to that sentiment at the debate. She talked about the importance of having a symbol to rally a diverse set of environmental groups. It has managed to unite the Sierra Club and Occupy Wall Street, ranchers in Nebraska and college students. Climate hawks have had a tough time getting attention when they talk about CO2 concentrations, parts per million, and other abstract concepts. She said that having a physical (proposed) piece of infrastructure is a much more tangible thing to get people's attention. 

David spoke mostly about the sociology of social movements. Central to his point is that movements are often slowed by pluralistic ignorance. Basically, people make false assumptions about the beliefs of their neighbors and peers. In the beginning of the civil rights movement, for instance, although many people might have supported desegregation, they assumed that others did not, and kept silent about it. David said that people need social proof - cues from others around them - that it is socially "OK" to change beliefs or behaviors. The recent surge in support for gay marriage rights is a reflection of this. Although people's views on homosexuality have probably been changing slowly for decades, over the last five years, public opinion has changed dramatically. There is a sort of tipping point to social movements, where, once people get enough social proof that it is "OK" to support a change, a minority opinion quickly becomes a majority one. And, having politicians come out and say that they support gay marriage is a particularly strong social proof. 

David's argument then, supported May's: we hope that having 40,000-50,000 people out under the Washington Monument, protesting the pipeline, serves as a sort of social proof for average folks who are unsure of what to think about climate change. 

It was a bit unfair to have Michael L as the only debater "for" the pipeline as I suspect that a large part of him supports the protesters. Fortunately, he is a smart guy and can easily hold his own. Michael L's main point was that the protest against Keystone XL alienates mainstream people that the climate movement needs on their side. People in "fly-over states," might be mildly sympathetic towards the climate movement, but turned off by rabid opposition to one pipeline. Right-wing pro-pipeline people have also turned the KXL fight into a symbol, but one of governmental-overreach and sentimental, hippie environmentalists. Michael L said that environmentalists should adopt more rational positions to avoid the backlash that protesting the pipeline would create. For instance, he said that if Obama does not approve the pipeline, it may make it more difficult for him to regulate power plants via the EPA. 

I think the smartest riposte to this was the idea that only 350.org and other activist groups are responsible for the changing opinion and mitigating climate change. For some people, the excitement of getting arrested to protest a pipeline might be what brings them on board. For others, it's going to be the rational analysis of Michael L. In fact, said David, the backlash created by people like May might make some centrists seek out analysts like Michael Levi. 

The hard part is that there are no definitive answers to the question of how best to organize a movement. Yes, the pipeline fight is creating support for climate change action. But is it alienating more people than it recruits? Is this the kind of social proof that people need? Is it making it harder for Obama to support other climate change action? As much as we analyze other social movements and test our theories of change, the unique context of the climate movement today make it different than any other movement. What worked for civil rights may not work for climate change.

This led to another important conclusion of the debate: why can't we all just get along? Rather than waste ink criticizing May and 350.org, focus on your theory of change and the positive way you want to affect the world. 

And, to paraphrase Michael G: you don't want to be the one telling Rosa Parks, "It's not about the bus system."

Debating the way forward on climate change

by Duncan Gromko

Keystone XL. Source: Ekhabishek

On April 18th at 6:30 pm, Michael Levi (energy writer for the Council on Foreign Relations), David Roberts (writer for Grist), May Boeve (executive director of 350.org), and Michael Grundwald (writer for Time magazine) will discuss climate change strategy at the University of California Washington Center (1608 Rhode Island NW). I'm really excited for the debate because it will cover competing views of the best way forward for the climate movement. Roberts, Grunwald, and Boeve have all supported protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. Levi, on the other hand, has argued that the pipeline, while not a good thing for the climate, is less important than other issues the movement could fight for: "The Keystone decision ultimately became far more about symbolism than substance. It’s a shame that so much attention was diverted from things that matter more."

In anticipation of the debate, here are several issues that I hope the panel discusses:

How important is it for the climate movement to be "reasonable?"
In terms of direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions, the construction Keystone XL pipeline is not as important as shutting down coal plants, improving energy efficiency, putting a price on carbon, or any number of other actions. But, KXL has successfully galvanized support for the climate movement. In choosing its issues, how should the movement balance changes in emissions against the need to pick issues that galvanize people.

What's next if the pipeline is approved?
It is looking increasingly likely that the pipeline will be approved. 350.org and Bill McKibben have made a point of repeating James Hansen's statement that the pipeline will be "game over" for the climate. Focus on one infrastructure project and exaggerating its importance has been one reason that 350.org has been able to organize any people. But if the pipeline is approved, how does 350.org pivot to other issues? If the game is over, how do they convince people that it is still worth fighting?

Is there some middle ground between Activists like Boeve and Analysts like Levi?
I've argued before that Activists could focus their efforts on issues that Analysts would agree are important: fossil fuel subsidies or West coast coal ports are two examples. Rather than fighting over the pipeline, there are issues that could excite both groups. What are these issues?

How can the environmental movement avoid being torn apart by natural gas and fracking?
Levi and many others have written about the climate benefits of natural gas; increasing fracking would increase natural gas production and decrease our dependency on coal. On the other side, 350.org and others are vociferous opponents of fracking, mostly because of the damage that fracking can do to local water supply. I doubt that the two sides will ever agree on the issue, but can they at least reach some truce that allows them to work together on climate change?

Is it important for Analysts and Activists to get along?
Analysts have undermined the Keystone protest, reducing its efficacy. You could also argue that Analysts have an important role to play in this debate, pushing Activists towards issues that will have the greatest climate impact. Should Activists worry more about what Analysts think?

What is your theory of change?
An interesting post by Jonathan Foley got me thinking about theories of change and how the ideas of a movement are realized. I'd expect that Levi, an "insider," might argue that policy in Washington is affected by good research and compelling ideas, advocated for from a respected position (like the Council on Foreign Relations). Boeve and 350.org have taken the opposite approach, by protesting outside the White House and organizing divestment campaigns. So how does change actually happen? How can the two sides work together?

What lessons can the climate movement learn from other movements?

Nick and I will be at the debate, hope to see you there!

Theories of Change

by Duncan Gromko

James Hansen; Source: SchuminWeb

Ever since the failure of the climate cap and trade bill, there has been a lot of introspection within the environmental community. What did we do wrong? Why hasn't a clear message with scientific backing been heard by the mainstream political and media communities? How can we improve our message and our strategy to influence policy? The answers to these questions come down to your theory of change: how does change happen?

James Hansen, the preeminent climate scientist in the United States recently retired from NASA. Dr. Hansen was one of the first scientists to ring the alarm bell about climate change. He was an "insider," advocating for action on climate change, using his credibility and prestige to point out the dangers of climate change. For anyone that accepted the science and the associated warnings, it was a no-brainer: the world, led by the United States, had to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. But the climate change issue has been marginalized as a hoax, something not under our control, or just too expensive to deal with. The economic downturn has further pushed the issue aside, as governments prioritized growth over environmental issues.

An excellent piece on Dr. Hansen's career explains that he has given up on working within the system. Dr. Hansen has spoken out at political rallies and gotten arrested for civil disobedience. Retiring from NASA is the final step in this evolution from a scientist with an intellectual method to an activist using other means to spread that message. Dr. Hansen made a clear statement about his motivation for retiring: "As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government."

Another respected "insider," Gus Speth, also recently retired from an establishment position. Dr. Speth founded the World Resources Institute and the National Resources Defense Council, worked for the Carter Administration, and was Dean of Yale's School of Forestry and Environment. As a lawyer, he tried to influence change more directly through policy. As Chairman on President Carter's Council on Environmental Quality, Dr. Speth was the administration's principal environmental advisor. Yet, he too retired from the insider role, writing in his book that he preferred to create change in a different way: "Civil disobedience was my way of saying that America's economic and political system had failed us all...We have to step outside of America's broken system of political economy and begin the difficult job of transforming it."

Everyone who is trying to influence the world around them has a theory of change. With an end goal in mind, an advocate has specific mechanisms to bring about that change.

In my work in international development, we have goals that are a little more narrow than the sort of sweeping change that climate hawks are advocating in the US. Simply put, we try to measure how our interventions lead to change on the ground. Output indicators measure our own actions: how many trainings we've done, infrastructure we helped finance, policy advice we've given, etc. Then, we measure the impact of these actions with outcome indicators: change in income, health, education, ecosystem health, etc.

Using this vocabulary, Dr. Hansen and Dr. Speth's actions suggest that their individual outputs were not having the desired outcomes. They're joining forces with social movements like the one Bill McKibben has started at 350.org to push for change via different outputs. McKibben and others have focused on creating social movements to create pressure on our political and economic institutions. They believe that using intellectual, rational persuasion like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Speth have done is not as effective as people in the street, op-eds in your newspaper, or calls to Congress.

McKibben wrote a great article for the Huffington Post where he debated this question in the context of the gay rights movement, drawing parallels between the gay rights movement in 1969 and the climate movement today. While the gay rights movement has been largely successful in changing public opinion and laws in the US, it took 40+years. McKibben says, "Stonewall took place in 1969, and as of last week the Supreme Court was still trying to decide if gay people should be allowed to marry each other. If the climate movement takes that long, we’ll be rallying in scuba masks."

Deciding on the right strategy is part of the reason for divisions in the environmental movement. Although we have similar end goals, we disagree about the most effective way to get there. I've already written about this some in my Activists and Analysts post. It's a little too simplified to think of things as just two groups with different versions (there is plenty of disagreement with the Analysts camp, for instance), but this sort of insider vs. outsider question is the decision most environmentalists are faced with.

There was a great post on this issue by Jonathan Foley, where he encourages people to test their theories of change to see what has worked and what hasn't. He makes a really depressing point: "When was the last time a social or political movement caused a major environmental policy change in Washington? Wasn’t it the early 1970s when we saw landmark federal legislation to protect clean air, clean water and endangered species?" Yet environmentalists persist with attempting to create change through a social movement.

But that doesn't prove that the activist approach is "wrong." The world is a lot more dynamic than just: does X output lead to Y outcome. I'd say that the other things matter: the quantity of the output, the quality of the output, and whole bunch of stuff outside of this model that is difficult or impossible to measure. For instance, the divestment movement against South African Apartheid "worked" in the sense that Apartheid ended. But how big a role did divestment in play in ending Apartheid? There was a lot of other sources of pressure, both internal and external, that led to change.

What does that mean for 350.org's divestment campaign against fossil fuel companies or more broadly for the environmental movement? Sorry to end this without a clear solution, but as much as analysts and activists disagree with each other, they might both be right. There is a great quote on FDR that is relevant to this schism: "FDR once met with a group of activists who sought his support for bold legislation. He listened to their arguments for some time and then said, 'You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.'" The movement has to win the argument AND create pressure on politicians. More and more Congressmen and Congresswomen have voiced their support for gay rights in recent weeks. While you can imagine that someone like Hillary Clinton has long supported gay rights on a personal level, she (and so many other politicians) only had the courage to do so publicly once the polls showed it was a winning political decision. The same will be true for action on climate change.