This infographic depicts key findings from our report, “The One Percent at State U.”
This article originally appeared in The Nation.The civil war in Syria grinds on, and conditions for Syrian civilians—those inside its borders as well as the millions forced to flee to neighboring countries—continue to deteriorate. As global and regional powers not only fail to help end the war but actively engage in arming and funding all sides in the fighting, we in civil society must sharpen our demands for a different position from that of our governments.
The crisis began with a popular call for an end to repression and a nonviolent movement demanding accountability from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government and the release of political prisoners and detainees. Economic and environmental traumas, including a crippling drought and the slashing of key government subsidies, underpinned the crisis. The government responded with a promise of reform—which went unfulfilled—accompanied by terrible violence. Many Syrian activists and defecting soldiers took up weapons in response, and as the fighting spread, Islamists—many of them non-Syrian extremists—joined the anti-government battle. Three years on, the civil war has broadened into several overlapping but distinct wars, national, regional, sectarian and international.
We must stand with those struggling for equality, dignity and human rights for all Syrians, and on the principle that there is no military solution to the conflict. Further military action will increase the violence and instability, not only inside Syria but within the region and even globally—and will not improve the lives of Syria’s beleaguered civilians.
This week, the House will vote on the Electrify Africa Act. This bill directs the president to draw up a multi-year strategy to strengthen the ability of countries in sub-Saharan Africa to “develop an appropriate mix of power solutions” to provide electricity, fight poverty, and “drive economic growth.”
Because of strong pressure from climate justice advocates, some positives—such as integrated resource planning and decentralized renewable energy—are named as a part of that mix. But because it still leaves the door wide open to fossil fuels, the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect people or their environment.
And the debate over Electrify Africa continues as the Senate drafts a companion bill.
Powering Fossil Fuels
Behind both pieces of legislation is a White House initiative announced last summer called “Power Africa.” It frames President Barack Obama’s approach to energy investment on the continent, which has been condemned by environmental justice groups. It’s an “all of the above” energy strategy that favors the fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet and corrupting Washington.
Proponents of Electrify and Power Africa have been most publicly enthusiastic about new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas on the continent, which has many African activists wary of a resource grab. Executives from companies like General Electric—which according to Forbes has recently pivoted its attention to the continent—have appeared on the podium with President Obama to applaud the policy.
At a March Senate hearing on Power Africa, Del Renigar, Senior Counsel for Global Government Affairs and Policy at GE, even noted that one of the company’s “most significant efforts to date has been focused on the privatization of the Nigerian power sector.” He lauded the potential of Power Africa to help “reduce the obstacles” to negotiating deals for power projects. And some backers of dirty energy are attempting to use the initiative to weaken the existing environmental safeguard policies of national development finance institutions such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
The backers of keeping dirty energy in Power Africa like to portray their opponents as privileged elites who want to keep Africans “in the dark” by denying them electricity and industrialization, while keeping their own lights on.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The real concern here is that U.S. taxpayers will wind up supporting African energy development that caters to corporate industrial zones and natural resource exporters, leaving the majority of Africans in rural and neglected urban areas still without access to power and exposed to dangerous pollution.
An OPIC proposal to finance the Azura Edo gas plant in Nigeria is a recent case in point. Areview of project documents and site visits by Environmental Rights Action Nigeria found that the plant will not provide any new energy access, even to villages immediately adjacent to the project, nor will families displaced by the project receive adequate resettlement compensation. Project developers did not consider any renewable energy options. Instead, the plant will use open-cycle gas turbines supplied by GE—a technology more polluting and less energy efficient than closed-cycle turbines. Yet this project is considered part of Power Africa.
A Global Climate Justice Movement
In Africa, the United States, and around the world, there is a growing outcry against the ravages of coal and other fossil fuel pollution, which sickens and kills—with the burden falling hardest on the poor, elderly, and children.
A climate justice movement with a clear vision for a clean, equitable energy future is making itself heard. The drivers of this movement are people living on the front line of dirty energy in poorer countries and in low-income neighborhoods in wealthier nations like the United States. They understand firsthand the effects of dirty energy pollution and climate chaos, and are champions of innovative forms of clean rural and urban electrification—not only in the Global South, but just as urgently in the heavily polluting Global North. In fact, an international campaign to demand climate justice, representing over 100 groups in developing and developed countries, has called for efforts to ensure “people’s access to clean, safe, and renewable energy sources.”
In Africa, climate justice activists are speaking eloquently about a new economy for Africans and everyone else that leapfrogs fossil fuels and delivers electricity to hundreds of millions of people through clean energy and energy efficiency.
Augustine Njamnshi, Policy Coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance in Cameroon, asserts that “the transition must be just as much as it must be swift. There must be clear measures to ensure ‘climate jobs’ are created—jobs and livelihoods that are necessary for the shift to low carbon, climate resilient, and equitable development pathways.” Innovation abounds in these areas, but policy incentives still tend to favor fossil fuels over clean energy.
Another dynamic group, Earthlife Africa, is opposing coal-fired plants in South Africa, which they argue will create far more environmental problems than energy benefits. Like most environmental justice groups, Earthlife couples that opposition with bold proposals for an alternative energy future. They are promoting studies about the job benefits of a renewable energy strategy. And they argue that, with the right policies, 50 percent of all South African electricity could come from renewable sources by 2050.
African climate justice groups have documented how large-scale energy projects tend to serve big corporations and the wealthy. According to the South Africa-based NGO Groundwork, residents pay up to seven times more for their electricity in that country than major corporations do. Meanwhile, pollution from the country’s dirty energy system results in massive health costs to the state.
The climate justice movement also points out that those most responsible for the problem should be the ones to help pay for real solutions. And that means divesting from dirty-energy corporations and investing in renewable energy systems that put people first. Desmond Tutu, South African social rights activist and retired Anglican bishop, recently wrote that “people of conscience need to break their ties with corporationsfinancing the injustice of climate change.”
The U.S. Congress and the White House would both do well to heed his call and allocate resources to contribute to the energy revolution that Africa and the United States so desperately need. It’s not a fossil fuel revolution, but instead one rooted in clean alternatives that come from the remarkable innovations of people working together.
On the same day that the federal government released its National Climate Assessment which summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, Stanford University trustees voted to divest their $18.7 billion endowment of coal stocks, the largest in a growing group of funds to partially divest from fossil fuels.
The message in the National Climate Assessment was clear: Climate change is upon us and it has already dramatically transformed our national landscape along with our weather. The time for delay on action is over.
The message from Stanford students was equally clear: It’s time for universities to act and divest from all fossil fuels. “Fossil Free Stanford, along with over 400 student campaigns across the country, maintains the goal of divesting from all fossil fuels,” the students wrote in their online statement. “Stanford’s coal divestment alone will not be enough turn the tide on climate change. We call on university administrators across the nation to follow Stanford’s lead and begin the process of divestment.”
Stanford students have worked for several years to build student, faculty and trustee support for an effort to divest their endowment of all fossil fuels. While Stanford has taken the first step in purging its investments of coal stocks, Deborah DeCotis, the Stanford trustee who chairs the investment responsibility committee, conceded that this was not the only step the university was prepared to take: “This is not the ending point. It’s a process. We’re a research institute, and as the technology develops to make other forms of alternative energy sources available, we will continue to review and make decisions about things we should not be invested in. Don’t interpret this as a pass on other things.”
The determination of Stanford students to divest their university from fossil fuels echoes some work several of us at the Institute for Policy Studies launched together with other groups in 1997, when we began to urge the World Bank to divest from all fossil fuels.
Last year, the World Bank issued its own report on climate change, “Turn Down the Heat,” which warned that the planet is on track for a four-degree Celsius temperature rise by 2100. Along with many scientists, the Bank fears that such an increase would be incompatible with civilization as we know it. At the very least, rapid global warming — and the storms, droughts and other extreme weather it would unleash — would render the bank’s mission of alleviating poverty and fostering sustainable development impossible.
It is surprising it took them this long to come to this conclusion. It was in 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, when the scientific community warned that a climate crisis was imminent, that the World Bank was charged with the task of marshaling the funds to address the emergency. But instead, over the next two decades, the Bank invested roughly $48.8 billion — not in clean energy, but in dirty fossil fuel projects in the developing world. Over the same time period, the Global Environmental Facility, housed at the Bank, invested only $3.5 billion in climate change mitigation projects.
In 2005, our researchers calculated that from 1992 to 2004, the World Bank had financed fossil fuel projects around the world that would release the equivalent of almost two years’ worth of global greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes. Our research found that virtually none of this financing would meet the energy needs of the planet’s poorest two billion people, nearly all of whom lived without access to electricity. Instead, the projects would power export-oriented heavy industry and urban areas — and bolster the bank accounts of wealthy corporations like Exxon and Halliburton.
Pressured to conduct its own review, the Bank issued a 2004 report that showed that the global poor were actually harmed by the Bank’s fossil fuel investments. The 2004 report further urged the Bank to stop financing coal immediately, to get out of oil by 2008, and to rapidly ramp up its investments in renewable energy sources. The Bank’s Board of Directors voted to ignore these recommendations, with the exception of setting modest targets for renewable energy lending.
Fast forward to June 2013, when President Obama made a major announcement on climate action in Georgetown, stating that public financing of coal — such as financing via agencies like the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) — should end.
We were the first organization, together with Friends of the Earth, to document the significant climate impacts of the Ex-Im Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation’s fossil fuel investments in 1998. That research resulted in a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the City of Boulder challenging both of those public financial institutions with violations under the National Environmental Protection Act, for not calculating the cumulative emissions of their projects on global climate. Obama’s statement took that research and legal action one step further and called for an end to almost all U.S. government funding of coal overseas. The White House statement said:
“…The President calls for an end to U.S. government support for public financing of new coal plants overseas, except for (a) the most efficient coal technology available in the world’s poorest countries in cases where no other economically feasible alternative exists, or (b) facilities deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies. As part of this new commitment, we will work actively to secure the agreement of other countries and the multilateral development banks to adopt similar policies as soon as possible.”
Shortly after Obama made this statement, other international financial institutions followed suit: First the World Bank, then the Ex-Im Bank rejected a coal burner in Vietnam; the European Investment Bank pledged to get out of most forms of coal; and then the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development followed along with the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom.
The recognition by all of these banks, and now by some university trustees, is abundantly clear: Coal is part of a bygone era. Coal kills, and — in an era of rapidly warming temperatures — it is time to seek other energy alternatives. But divesting from coal is not enough: These banks and universities must divest from all fossil fuels.
Thankfully, the tide is turning. And hopefully it will turn more rapidly than our own tides will rise.
As families in the United States steel themselves for the possibility of another sweltering summer with rolling blackouts triggered by high demand for air conditioning, it’s a good time to remember that many families throughout Africa work and live in buildings with no electricity. In areas that do have the utility, frequent power outages are a constant reminder of the need for dependable access to electricity.
In June 2013, U.S. policymakers announced two initiatives aimed at increasing electricity production in Africa. President Obama launched Power Africa, an initiative that makes a $7 billion U.S. commitment to the energy sector in six African countries. And Representatives Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) introduced the Electrify Africa Act — which is expected to pass in the House mid-week by unanimous consent — which sets a goal of providing access to electricity for at least 50 million people in sub-Saharan Africa by 2020. Both initiatives place increasing investment by U.S. companies in Africa at their center.
Africa is home to almost 600 million people without electricity, all of whom struggle to meet their basic needs as a result. Access to power translates into refrigerating vaccines, keeping food from spoiling, studying after dark — the kinds of activities that can dramatically improve basic health, education, and economic opportunity.
While rhetoric around the two U.S. initiatives is about reducing poverty and improving Africans’ quality of life, the approaches being outlined seem likely to lead to large, climate-polluting, centralized power projects — not the decentralized, renewable energy systems that are the most efficient and cleanest means of reaching Africa’s poorest families.
Decentralized, renewable energy sources are best for the rural poor.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that universal energy access can be achieved by 2030 with significantly stepped-up investment. In sub-Saharan Africa, it would require an extra $19 billion a year, and money pledged by the U.S. government could be a strong down payment.
The IEA also notes that the majority of the additional investment needs to go to small-scale mini-grid and off-grid solutions — which are more efficient at delivering electricity to people in rural areas, where 84 percent of the energy-poor live — and not to centralized power plants. Small-scale systems produce energy at the household and community level from renewable sources, including micro-hydro, solar, wind, and biogas.
So an energy access win for the poor is also a win for the environment. By developing clean energy instead of burning fossil fuels, decentralized renewable systems help curb greenhouse gas emissions and curtail climate change. That’s important because if left unfettered, climate change is predicted to wreak havoc across Africa.
Africa will be disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis.
According to the World Bank, climate change is likely to undermine the development gains made in recent decades, pushing millions of people back into poverty. And as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the leading global scientific body on climate change — notes, warming on the African continent could be some of the developing world’s most severe, reaching one-and-a-half times the global average.
Droughts and heat waves brought on by climate change are expected to significantly compromise agricultural production and access to food in Africa. Yields from rain-fed agriculture could drop by 50 percent in some countries by 2020, and crop revenues could fall by as much as 90 percent by 2100. Food insecurity and exacerbated malnutrition in turn will compromise human health.
Sea level rise is anticipated to threaten the 320 coastal cities and 56 million people living in low-lying coastal zones around the continent. And the cost to African nations of adapting to a warmer world could amount to between 5 and 10 percent of their gross domestic product.
“All of the above” means dirty and clean power.
While Power Africa and the Electrify Africa Act do include language about developing “an appropriate mix of power solutions, including renewable energy,” proponents of these policies have been most publicly enthusiastic about new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas on the continent.
Natural gas, in particular, is front and center. While gas is sometimes talked about as a “cleaner” fossil fuel, it can be even more polluting than dirty coal when methane (a greenhouse gas 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide) is released during its production.
In other words, gas is no “bridge fuel” between energy poverty and the clean power that every person deserves. Once Africans are locked into natural gas infrastructure, they’re locked into 40 years of increasing emissions—and four more decades of global warming’s impacts.
Continued fossil fuel expansion threatens U.S. climate policy.
The push for natural gas is so forceful that one of the U.S. government’s strongest climate policies to date — the cap on greenhouse gas emissions at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) — has come under fire.
OPIC’s cap — an outcome of a 2009 legal settlement with environmental groups over the agency’s practice of lending to large, destructive oil and gas projects — forces a 30 percent greenhouse gas reduction across its portfolio over 10 years and a 50 percent reduction over 15 years.
The results have been notable. By 2011, the agency’s renewable energy finance had risen to nearly $1 billion, about a third of its total commitments that year. By contrast, the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) — OPIC’s sister organization — steadily increased investment in dirty energy, with fossil fuel funding doubling between 2011 and 2012.
Unfortunately, some development groups say that to achieve energy access for Africa, OPIC’s hard-won greenhouse gas cap has to be weakened. For instance, a lobbying document [PDF] from the ONE campaign highlights how the Electrify Africa Act “unlocks OPIC’s investment potential by requiring OPIC to revise its existing policy on the carbon emissions of its investments to permit significant investment in the electricity sector of the poorest and lowest pollution-emitting countries.”
Ironically, the impacts of doing away with this policy — more greenhouse gas emissions and fewer renewable projects focused on access — would only come back to hit communities in Africa even harder as climate change intensifies.
Who stands to gain by busting the cap?
If large, centralized fossil fuel production won’t particularly help poor Africans access energy — and would exacerbate climate change, which in turn threatens development on the continent — why would anyone want to bust the greenhouse gas cap at OPIC?
For one possible explanation, look no further than the oil and gas fields recently found off the coast of Africa. Big reserves mean big money, and the business of extracting and processing new oil and gas from sub-Saharan Africa will be lucrative.
It’s OPIC’s job to help U.S. companies gain a foothold in emerging markets like these by providing finance. And by doing away with lending restrictions on climate polluting projects, OPIC is free to grease the wheels for mega-deals between U.S. fossil fuel companies and African interests.
One of those companies appears to be General Electric, which recently signed a tentative deal with Ghana to build a power plant likely to be fueled with natural gas from the Jubilee offshore field. (Perhaps not uncoincidentally, G.E.’s CEO traveled with Obama on his Africa trade mission.) According to Forbes, G.E. has recently pivoted its attention to Africa and is marketing power generation products like natural gas engines to African companies. Not surprising, then, that Ex-Im chairman Fred Hochberg called Power Africa a “$7B plan to power up General Electric” on Twitter.
Helping to bring electricity into the homes, schools, hospitals, and workplaces of tens of millions of people living on the African continent is the right thing to do. The United States can support energy access through public finance — raised from innovative sources like a financial transaction tax and by ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies — and by directing the $7 billion Obama promised to decentralized, renewable energy systems. That would ensure that we’re spending our money to benefit African families, not U.S. energy companies.
Africans deserve to live full, dignified, productive lives free from dirty energy and safe from the climate disaster it promises. U.S. policymakers and taxpayers can power Africa best by protecting the planet and securing future generations.
This post has been updated from its original version posted on September 16, 2013.
Originally appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus.
Greenhouse gas emissions are rising, and our addiction to fossil fuels is to blame.
That, in a nutshell, is the conclusion of an authoritative new UN report published on April 13th. Emissions have not only continued to increase, but have done so more rapidly in the last 10 years. While the growing reliance on coal for global energy supplies is chiefly to blame for the latest increase, the broader picture is that “economic growth has outpaced emissions reductions.”
The new report, entitled Mitigation of Climate Change, is the third in a series of blockbuster surveys from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body tasked with reviewing the work of thousands of scientists and experts to establish the “current state of knowledge” on climate change and its impacts. The first report—The Physical Science Basis—once again established with overwhelming certainty that the climate is changing and greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans are primarily responsible. The second report—Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability—warned that climate change would have a catastrophic impact on food supplies, hitting the world’s poorest people the hardest. It also documented the increased risks posed by floods, droughts, and damaged ecosystems as a result of climate change. The mitigation report models scenarios for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A final synthesis of all three elements will be released in October.
The IPCC is not tasked with recommending what should happen next, but it maps out the terrain upon which the battles over what should be done are fought. A full “underlying” report, running to a thousand pages, is prefaced with a 30-page “policymakers’ summary” written in often impenetrable bureaucratic jargon. That’s a result of how the IPCC works: hundreds of authors (272 on the mitigation report alone) review thousands of scientific papers to produce the underlying report, and then representatives of the 195 governments that participate in the IPCC are asked to approve the summary report line by line.
It’s a wonder that anything manages to emerge from this labyrinthine operation, and it’s to the credit of the many authors that they have managed to clearly chart some of the contours of the challenge we face in addressing climate change. The results are clearest in the case of fossil fuels, with the IPCC mitigation report making perfectly clear that we cannot continue to rely on coal, oil, and (over the long term, at least) gas and expect to avert dangerous climate change.
Almost half of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2010 came from the energy supply sector, with a greater reliance on coal chiefly to blame. Continuing on this course would lead to a rise of up to 5°C (compared to pre-industrial levels) by the end of the century, with disastrous consequences. Averting this catastrophe requires a rapid “decarbonization” of electricity generation and a reduction in subsidies for fossil fuels, alongside measures to soften the impacts of these changes on poor and vulnerable populations. The report also provides succor to proponents of fossil fuel divestment, noting that “mitigation policy could devalue fossil fuel assets and reduce revenues for fossil fuel exporters.”
At its best, the IPCC report can help us to refocus attention on the practical measures that can make a real difference in addressing climate change. In an insightful section on urbanization and buildings, for example, the report lays out the important role that can be played by tougher codes on the construction of new buildings, regulations to retrofit existing ones, the importance of expanding public transport and encouraging “modal shifts” away from cars and planes, and city planning that avoids urban sprawl.
The IPCC’s overview is more problematic on issues that are more politically contentious, however—notably on how and when to replace fossil fuels. Natural gas power generation is referred to as a potential “bridge technology,” a conclusion that reflects linear thinking about how emissions might decline, but ignores more sophisticated modeling (from MIT, among other institutions) showing how investments in gas displace renewable energy and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Elsewhere in the report, in fact, there is a clear warning that “infrastructure developments and long-lived products that lock societies into GHG-intensive emissions pathways may be difficult or very costly to change.” That must surely include new gas power plants, although the compromises reached in constructing the IPCC summary don’t give space for further dialogue on the matter.
The IPCC’s take on other energy generation options is similarly hedged. The report notes that renewable energy technologies “have achieved a level of maturity to enable deployment at significant scale.” But nuclear power and “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) from fossil fuel plants are presented as having potential, albeit with greater caution about their respective safety, storage, waste issues, and costs. That is not so much a neutral expert view on the future of energy generation as it is a reflection of the influence of large private and state-owned utilities in shaping the agenda on these issues. Much of the research the IPCC reviews, after all, is funded by large energy utilities or government research councils that reflect their agenda, and its findings are ultimately reviewed by governments that own (or are heavily lobbied by) the large fossil fuel and nuclear companies. The IPCC reflects the balance of power in struggles over energy. But the battle for clean, renewable energy is happening elsewhere.
The IPCC summary report is also selective in how it treats the global distribution of emissions. Glen Peters, a University of Oslo academic who studies how emissions relate to consumption patterns, took to Twitter to note that “All material on consumption-based emissions and embodied (outsourced) emissions [were] removed” from the summary.
Significant compromises can be seen where international negotiating positions are at stake. With a new global climate treaty expected in 2015, the working group on mitigation was fraught with arguments on how to frame the responsibility for taking global action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under the auspices of which a new global climate treaty will be devised, is clear that cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are primarily the responsibility of industrialized countries. That same group of countries (which includes the United States, the EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, and a handful of others) has the greatest capacity to act to reduce their own emissions, and should also provide the transfers of finance and technology needed to help the rest of the world reduce its emissions.
The IPCC summary report is broadly in keeping with the UNFCCC framework. It reaffirms the importance of “sustainable development and equity” as the basis for climate policy assessments. The former aspect is essential for developing countries, which argue that climate action should not compromise efforts to reduce poverty or improve healthcare, education, and other services. In this regard, the IPCC notes that “most mitigation has considerable and diverse co-benefits”: reducing emissions can cut air pollution, for example, while renewables can enhance energy security. The controversies are greater on how “equity” is defined, but here the IPCC report clearly references “past and future” contributions, which gives lie to the notion often promoted by U.S. policymakers that only current and future comparisons with competitors like China should be taken into account.
But matters get more controversial in relation to the underlying report and an accompanying “technical summary,” which is peppered with references to “high income countries,” “upper middle-income countries,” “lower middle-income countries,” and “low income countries”—a differentiation that conflicts with how the UNFCCC divides the world. Those divisions, translated into the arena of climate diplomacy, are viewed as an attempt to divide up developing countries in a way that undermines the UNFCCC and opens up key issues of responsibility (and financial or technology transfers) for renegotiation. This resulted in a series of formal objections to the report from, among others, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, India, the Maldives, Venezuela, Malaysia, and Egypt.
More generally, the IPCC’s scenarios for how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions betray a strong Western bias in the report. After all, 70 percent of its authors are from the developed world, and it relies heavily on literature published in developed countries. Negotiations are underway on how to reform the IPCC to better reflect the breadth of global knowledge, but unless academic agendas become less parochial—which starts with research funding at the national level, potentially provided by financial transfers facilitated by an international climate agreement—progress on this aspect is unlikely to happen soon.
Until that time, the IPCC will remain far from perfect. The latest report on mitigation is a clear illustration, offering a partial, compromised, and politically biased map of the potential solutions to climate change. But it remains the most comprehensive map that’s available to us—one that, for all its flaws, codifies the fundamental importance of cutting our addiction to fossil fuels if we’re to have any chance of avoiding a climate catastrophe.
In 2011, the UN established “Sustainable Energy for All”, a global initiative with three goals: achieving universal energy access, increasing energy efficiency, and doubling the renewable energy supply by 2030. The first of these goals seems daunting considering that nearly 1.3 billion people on the planet still lack access to any form of modern energy and around 1 billion people have access to only intermittent electricity.
Work is being done to make these goals a reality: At the recent spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group in Washington D.C., environment and development civil society groups and social entrepreneurs came together with World Bank staff to discuss strategies that will achieve universal sustainable energy access.
These conversations often pushed experts who represent international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, to focus on ways to finance energy access through mini- and off-grid solutions. According to the International Energy Agency, these smaller-scale energy systems are the most efficient and cost-effective — and, some argue, the most equitable — way to alleviate rural energy poverty. These systems also tend to use renewable energy instead of coal or fossil fuels, so they help to meet two of the UN’s objectives at once.
During a panel on universal energy access, sustainable energy and climate policy experts discussed different approaches to achieve this objective. Some panelists highlighted that the money spent on distributed renewables — that is, small-scale, mostly solar, wind, and small hydropower projects that can be built where remote families live — currently only represents a small proportion of overall funding for energy access.
Vrinda Manglik, an associate campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s international clean energy access program, advocated for increasing this funding. Distributed renewables are beneficial in that they have lower environmental impacts and deliver a more secure energy supply than centralized large-scale facilities like coal- and gas-fired power plants.
Alex Doukas, a research analyst from the World Resources Institute, added that a key part to achieving universal access goals includes improving regulations — both at the federal and international institutional level — and increasing the amount of finance directly given to energy access projects. Improved regulations would create environments in developing countries that would in turn unlock larger flows of investment therein.
Daniel Schnitzer, founder of clean energy company EarthSpark International, used the example of how energy access to communities in the rural U.S. is provided to argue for improved regulations elsewhere. Success in delivering energy access to rural families in the U.S., Schnitzer argued, was dependent on improving federal regulations and finding investors interested in its financing. The same would be needed now for electrification in developing countries, most especially in finding investors who are looking for social returns — that is, investments that provide societal benefits such as reducing inequality and improving quality of life — in addition to financial ones.
The spring meetings provided some hope that major finance providers like the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank’s private arm, are changing their outlook on renewable energy.
Reinhard Reichel, Senior Investment Officer from the International Finance Corporation — the World Bank’s private arm — claimed that the financing needs for fossil fuels and renewable energy are different. Fossil fuels have low upfront costs and high operating costs, while renewable energy has high upfront costs but is cheaper long-term. He pointed out that these high upfront costs and “market readiness” requirements make financing inefficient for the renewable energy projects discussed.
Public finance institutions that publically commit themselves to funding energy access should focus their efforts on creating environments in developing countries that support distributed renewable energy and on helping small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs overcome capital investment barriers such as these high upfront costs.
If sustainable universal energy access is going to be achieved, international financial institutions need to be critical of business-as-usual financing schemes — such as continuing to favor dirty energy due to its lower upfront costs — and instead push for greater investment in innovative, renewable energy sources that provide far greater benefits in the long run.
It’s not usually realistic for a candidate who came in 5th to credibly claim that he had a major impact on an election.
Yet Andy Shallal did.
When he launched his late-starting, outsider campaign for Mayor of Washington, D.C., local political conversations were about a booming city with a scandal-plagued incumbent mayor. By the end, all the discussions were about which candidate had the best chance to defeat the scandal-plagued mayor.
But for a few months at least, Shallal injected the “Tale of Two Cities” reality into the local narrative, tying it explicitly to race and class. He argued against just counting construction cranes, in favor of counting how many kids remain in deep poverty, how many African-Americans remain unemployed, and how much it costs to afford a home.
By the end of the campaign, all the candidates, including four sitting city council members, were promising (however vaguely) that they would focus on affordable housing, and finding ways to keep long-time residents in their homes.
Was this all due to Shallal’s candidacy? No.
Was the election debate more serious and more explicitly tied to race and class because he was running? Absolutely.
Consider the issue of education reform, where Andy had a profound impact. Before his candidacy, almost the entire political establishment inside the Beltway, from the Washington Post to the City Council to the Mayor to the Secretary of Education to the President, all seemed to agree that education “reform” in Washington, D.C., was a huge success: test scores were up, and “Race to the Top” was working.
Andy Shallal disagreed. And he did so by pointing out some stubborn facts.
He pointed out that the racial gap had increased, not decreased, since so-called “reform” had been put in place. He pointed out that a big chunk of the test score gains over time came before the so-called “Rhee reforms,” before the closing of so many neighborhood schools, before the churn and turmoil caused by the firing of hundreds of supposedly “bad” teachers.
His campaign website opened up to a graph that showed that the 8th-grade reading scores for low-income students were lowest among all major urban areas. He pointed out that “no child left behind” had turned into “no child left untested, no teacher left unstressed!” He promised there would be no more neighborhood school closures.
Shallal didn’t just complain. He called for reclaiming the promise of public education, and published a 13-page white paper which led Diane Ravitch to write—under the blog heading A Mayoral Candidate for D.C. Who Rejects the Rhee Era of Test and Punish: “…it is heartening to know that at least one of the mayoral candidates has a fresh vision for educating the children of the District of Columbia and is willing to oppose the status quo.”
By the end of the campaign, closing the education racial gap was a top issue for everyone. Andy had punctured the false consensus about the “success” of education “reform.” A bit of truth had seeped through all the hype.
Andy Shallal did not win. He will not — unfortunately, in my opinion — be D.C.’s next mayor. He could not overcome being unknown to most voters, running as an Iraqi-American in a city often divided between Whites & Blacks, and getting a late start.
He was outstanding in the debates and forums, but “only” raised a couple hundred thousand dollars, which meant his direct voter contact lagged far behind most other candidates.
Andy called for public financing, but unlike in New York City, where Bill de Blasio’s brilliant run for mayor was boosted by the city’s 6-1 public match for small donations, there is not such a system in Washington—and he was outspent by something like 7-1.
So he lost the race.
But he made a difference. He changed the way D.C. talked about its growth, its inequality, its own “tale of two cities.” He altered the propaganda that has surrounded Washington, D.C.’s school “reforms,” and brought the racial gap back into focus.
He took on the hardships of running, and faced up to defeat with dignity and good humor—and he made a difference on several issues that matter to the poorest, most disrespected, most disenfranchised people in D.C.
In a money-drenched political system that often requires multiple candidacies prior to winning, Andy Shallal sowed some seeds for the future.
For millions of low-income Americans, Medicaid is the only means of addressing healthcare needs. Only 25 states have agreed to Medicaid expansion in the United States as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — and while this would mean an expansion of healthcare coverage for most services, there’s a risk that it could mean cuts to the program when it comes to mental healthcare. There is no federal requirement for states to allocate any of their budget to mental health services: consequently, states have every ability to disadvantage those dependent on mental healthcare by underfunding or cutting funding for it entirely. In the 25 states that have refused to adopt Medicaid expansion under the ACA, for instance, nearly four million people with mental illnesses will go uninsured and will be unable to afford private insurance, according to a study by American Mental Health Counselors Association. Youth are a particular concern for mental health coverage as well. Approximately four million American children and adolescents have some form of mental illness, and nearly one-tenth of all minors are hospitalized because of it. “Psych under 21,” a Medicaid benefit that allows low-income minors under 21 years of age to receive mental health services, is entirely optional for states to provide. As a result, many parents pay out-of-pocket for their dependents’ mental health care because they may not be able to afford private health insurance or qualify for Medicaid that includes mental healthcare. At minimum, the program should be required at the federal level to cover the majority of prescription costs, long- and short-term services and supports (such as stays in psychiatric health centers), and outpatient therapy visits. Non-traditional therapies, like dialectical behavioral therapy or music therapy, could also be considered as medically beneficial to mental health. The expansion of Medicaid via the ACA is certainly a good start to improving the lives of millions of Americans, but it must be seen as a first step to a greater conversation on healthcare — with mental health as a critical component. Brianna Montague is an intern for the Break the Chain Campaign.
The crisp winter air stings as it hits my face on the way out of the restaurant. I’m not sure which hurts more – the winter chill or my empty pocketbook – as I briskly shove 87 crinkled dollar bills inside. It’s a Saturday night. I just worked a grueling 12-hour shift on my feet for a measly $87.
My empty stomach aches because I wasn’t allowed to stop and eat, except for a 45-minute break nearly 8 hours ago. Nothing’s open, except for the bars and the 24-hour pizza place around the corner. I all but inhale a $3 slice before making my way home. When my head finally hits the pillow, I try desperately not to think about the fact that I have to get up in seven hours and do it all over again.
It wouldn’t be so bad if I didn’t wake up every day with $60,000 in college debt hanging like a noose around my neck.
“I should be able to do better than this,” I think.
I grew up poor. Neither of my parents finished college. As the first in my family to finish my degree, I thought this was supposed to be my way out. Why did I just spend $60,000 and six years of my life, only to end up back where I started — waiting tables?
This was my nightmare. Somehow, somewhere, I failed.
But I know that’s not true. I’m a first-generation college graduate with a master’s degree from a prestigious university. My degrees should be evidence of success, not failure. Something else is going on here.
Since the Great Recession, part-time job growth has skyrocketed and continues to remain high. Currently, there are 260,000 college graduates working for minimum wage and over 43 percent of minimum wage workers have at least some college education. That’s twice as many as the pre-recession rate of 127,000 in 2005. Moreover, five out of ten of the largest low- wage jobs are in restaurants, where the tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 per hour. Imagine paying back school loans on minimum wage, let alone $2.13 an hour, hoping that someone you serve leaves you a generous tip.
What’s worse, research shows that college grads are pushing non-graduates out of work because we’re all competing for the same low-wage jobs. It looks like we are creating an economy where a college degree is the new norm not for a professional job.For any job.
That’s why the Miller-Harkin Act is so important. It would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 and, more importantly, would also raise the tipped minimum wage to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage, or $7.07. That makes President Barack Obama’s proposal of $4.90 look modest.
People who work hard and go to school deserve to make a living. Our economy is not designed to offer that.
If I can’t find a better job, it will take me as many as 292 months to pay off my student loans. That’s 24 years. I’ll be debt free just in time to help my future children get student loans for their college education.
So the cycle continues.
Marcie Gardner is an intern at the Institute for Policy Studies for its Economic Hardship Reporting Project.