Glasgow takes center stage amidst mix of optimism and pessimism

As 30,000 world leaders, diplomats, scientists, activists, journalists, and business executives gather in Glasgow, Scotland, for COP26, the outlook is a complex blend of pessimism and optimism.

The assignment for those attending this 26th Conference of the Parties October 31 to November 12 (including President Joe Biden) is to set new targets for cutting emissions from burning coal, oil and gas. At COP21 in Paris six years ago, more than 190 nations established a long-term temperature goal of keeping the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limiting the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). As part of the treaty, each nation was to develop its nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by 2020. 

These non-binding commitments are the pledges that participating countries are supposed to be updating. So far 17 countries (including the U.S.) and the European Union have made new pledges. Among the major emitters that have yet to do so are China, Russia, and India.

On October 26, Australia’s government promised to reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050, unveiling a plan that The New York Times’ Damien Cave wrote is “built on hope and investment in low-emissions technologies. Promising jobs and no new taxes or mandates, the plan did not include any toughening of emissions targets for 2030 — a major component of what scientists have said will be needed from world leaders at (Glasgow).”

The U.K. and U.N. hosts have said they want to “keep hope alive” of constraining global temperature rise to under 1.5 degrees Celsius, New York Times reporter Lisa Friedman wrote. “Meeting that goal means all countries must commit to cutting emissions faster and deeper than they already are doing.”

“We’re not bending the curve as much as we should,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, told Brady Dennis of The Washington Post. “We need to get much more ambitious.” 

A new U.N. report estimates that new commitments from about 120 nations, as of the end of September, could result in a 7.5 percent cut to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if fully implemented. “But,” Dennis wrote, “emissions would actually need to fall about seven times that fast to hit the most lofty goal of the Paris agreement — limiting Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.”

Some experts want to look on the bright side. “There has been a genuine shift over the past decade,” said Niklas Höhne, a German climatologist and founding partner of NewClimate Institute, which created the Climate Action Tracker. “You can say that progress has been too slow, that it’s still not enough, and I agree with all that. But we do see real movement.”

One major reason for that movement is the plummeting cost of renewable energy. “A decade ago,” Brad Plumer reported in The New York Times, “solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles were often seen as niche technologies, too expensive for widespread use... Today, wind and solar power are the cheapest new source of electricity in most markets. Electric vehicle sales are setting records. Automakers like Ford and General Motors are now preparing to phase down sales of gasoline-powered cars...”

Yet there are troubling signs of lost opportunities. Efforts to promote economic recovery from the pandemic could have focused much more on tackling climate change. “We are witnessing an uneven and unsustainable recovery from last year’s economic crisis – a recovery that consists of huge growth in fossil fuel consumption while leaving behind nearly 80% of the world’s population in the shift towards a new and cleaner energy economy,” said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has just issued a sobering report. 

The mixed outlook is also true in the business community. Many major corporations, such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever, are promoting a more rapid transition to a carbon-free economy, and the Business Roundtable has issued a pre-COP26 statement in support of decarbonization. But in some segments of the business community, you can hear the sound of heels dragging.

One COP26 test is methane. Rachel Frazen, a reporter for The Hill, wrote, “In recent months, the international community has shown momentum on reducing its emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. The U.S. and European Union are leading a global methane pledge, which seeks to reduce global methane pollution by at least 30 percent by 2030 and which more than 30 countries have signed.” 

James Hansen, who, as a NASA scientist a quarter century ago testified in Congress about the threat posed by climate change, recently told The Washington Post, “We need to get on a different path soon. And we won’t get on that path without a price on carbon. The fundamental requirement is to provide the incentives that will lead us to carbon-free energy. That means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. It has to include the cost to society.

“I’ve been pushing a carbon fee and dividend [a system in which governments tax emissions and distribute the revenue to citizens]. But frankly, getting 200 nations around the table to come to the agreement is probably not a practical way to do it.

“The fact is that the U.S. and China could do it. They could put a border duty on products from countries that do not have an equivalent carbon fee, and that would encourage other countries to have their own carbon fee.”

Ford making big move toward EVs

The transition from gasoline-powered vehicles to those relying on electricity picked up speed September 27. Ford announced that it will build three battery factories and an electric truck plant in Tennessee and Kentucky, creating 11,000 jobs over the next four years.

The company described the investment, which it said would enable it to produce more than one million electric vehicles a year in the second half of this decade, as the single largest in its 118-year history. Ford will invest $7 billion, and a South Korean supplier, SK Innovation, will add $4.4 billion.

“I think the industry is on a fast road to electrification,” Ford’s executive chairman, William C. Ford Jr., said in an interview with The New York Times. “And those who aren’t are going to be left behind.”

There are already more than 50 electric models available in the U.S., according to the Department of Energy, including 14 small SUVs, 10 midsize cars, and eight standard SUVs. 

Overall, The Wall Street Journal’s Mike Colias reported, Ford has committed to spend $30 billion on electric vehicles through 2025, with some of that already spent. It is a signal that Ford isn’t ceding this ground to rival General Motors, which has pledged to shift to electrics and produce its own batteries.

The industry “has made a hard pivot to electric vehicles in recent months,” wrote The Times’ Neal E. Boudette, “because of growing environmental concern — and because of the competitive threat posed by Tesla, the dominant maker of electric cars.

“Established automakers like Ford and General Motors are racing to catch up to Tesla, which is on track to sell more than 800,000 electric cars this year. Tesla has become the most valuable automaker in the world by far, with a market capitalization of nearly $800 billion. Ford’s market value is $56 billion.”

Ford executives say they are seeing higher-than-expected demand for a forthcoming electric F-150 pickup truck, called the Lightning, collecting more than 150,000 nonbinding reservations since it was unveiled in May.

Covering nearly six square miles, the Tennessee complex, 50 miles northeast of Memphis, would be roughly three times the size of Ford’s River Rouge plant complex near its Dearborn, Michigan, headquarters. It will feature an auto plant and a battery production facility.

Ford and SK Innovation will build two battery manufacturing plants in Glendale, Kentucky, 50 miles south of Louisville. The batteries made there will be used at North American plants that will produce Fords and Lincolns. 

"This is our moment - our biggest investment ever - to help build a better future for America," said Jim Farley, Ford's president and chief executive. “We are moving now to deliver breakthrough electric vehicles for the many rather than the few.” The company has already ramped up investment in EV production at its Texas and Michigan plants.

Mike Ramsey, a Gartner analyst, told The Times, “The fact they are spending billions of dollars means they’re saying: ‘There’s no turning back. We’re really going to do this.’”

Even companies that have resisted electric cars have been changing their tune, Boudette reported. Toyota, in a sudden shift in strategy, said recently that it planned to spend billions of dollars over the next decade to build battery factories and hoped to sell two million electric cars a year by the end of the decade.

Several other automakers, including Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Hyundai and Stellantis, which was formed by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and France’s Peugeot, are also investing billions of dollars to produce electric vehicles.

Ford told the BBC that the announcement was not timed to coincide with this week's voting on Capitol Hill on bills that include major provisions to tackle climate change. But the company said it supports passage of both bills, which would “help more Americans get into electric vehicles, while at the same time supporting American manufacturing and union jobs.”

Incentives and federal investment to accelerate the nation’s transition to EV’s are key components of President Biden’s Build Back Better plan. PRG considers those initiatives essential elements in our fight against climate change and common-sense supplements to a carbon tax.

Bill Nitze personified bipartisan advocacy

The Partnership lost a wonderful friend and committed advocate July 30 with the passing of Bill Nitze, a member of our Advisory Board from its creation. He was 78.

“Bill was a longtime and enthusiastic supporter of carbon pricing and a leader in trying to get Republicans back into the fold in the fight against climate change,” said PRG co-founder and board chairman George T. Frampton Jr. Nitze served in important environmental positions under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. He was forced to leave the Bush administration by John Sununu, the president's chief of staff, for public comments that were perceived to overstate the administration's commitment to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions. 

After leaving his job in the Bush administration, Nitze served for four years as president of the Alliance to Save Energy, where he promoted energy efficiency via changes to residential and commercial building codes, as well as tax incentives. 

“He also had a strong entrepreneurial spirit,” recalled another PRG co-founder, CEO William C. Eacho. Nitze was chairman of Oceana Energy Company, which develops hydrokinetic technology to convert tidal energy into electricity, and Clear Path Technologies, Inc., which designs and builds neutron-based systems for detecting and identifying explosives and other dangerous substances in sealed containers. He also co-founded GridPoint, Inc., which develops and markets intelligent energy management systems for residential, commercial, and industrial applications.

“He was the definition of a Renaissance man,” said Frampton. “He seemed to be interested in almost everything, including philosophy, history, art, literature, drama, Japanese culture, and artificial intelligence, which he taught at George Mason University’s Krasnow Institute. I remember that Bill was a great student of Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Dutch philosopher, whom I briefly tried out and found virtually unreadable.”

Nitze was the son of Paul Henry Nitze, an architect of Cold War defense policy, an arms control negotiator, and a presidential advisor to administrations spanning those from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Reagan. After earning an AB and JD from Harvard, Nitze worked at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and then for the Mobil Oil Company. He later served on the board of directors of the Aspen Skiing Company and as a trustee of the Aspen Institute. 

“Bill was one of a kind,” said PRG co-founder Walter Minnick, who had known him for half a century, since their days at Harvard Law School. “He was not only exceedingly smart, but equally persuasive and inquisitive. We were lucky to have his help in the effort to promote carbon pricing.”

PRG on Capitol Hill

From left to right, William C. Eacho, Waverly Dooling, Representative Spanberger, and Representative Wild in the chamber leading to the House Floor. June 29th, 2021.

Last week our CEO, former Ambassador William Eacho, and intern Waverly Dooling went to Capitol Hill to discuss the merits of a carbon fee with a few representatives. At the Partnership, we believe pricing carbon is crucial not only to curbing emissions and creating a greener global economy, but also to remaining competitive globally. The border adjustments that a carbon fee allows can both enhance U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and spur our trade partners to decarbonize as well.

During our time on the Hill, we had the opportunity and honor to have one-on-one meetings with and visit the offices of Representatives Susan Wild (D-PA), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), and Don Beyer (D-VA). We learned that there is considerable support from Democrats in Congress for pricing carbon--matched with disappointment that the leadership is not enthusiastic about it. Furthermore, all of the representatives we spoke to acknowledge that a Clean Energy Standard (CES) can help decarbonize the electrical sector but are conscious of its limitations. The CES would not decarbonize the rest of the economy, protect U.S. manufacturers from competition from coal-dependent exporters like China, or encourage other countries to decarbonize (which a border adjustment with a carbon fee would). 

How can this underlying receptiveness to a national price on carbon emissions develop enough momentum to become the law of the land? As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) says, the business community needs to step up its lobbying. Success also depends on gaining support from the Democratic leadership and the White House. We would like to thank Rep. Wild, Rep. Ross, Rep. Spanberger, Rep. Malinowski, and Rep. Beyer for their time, attention, and candid thoughts. The Partnership intends to continue to meet with Congresspeople, leadership, and aides over the summer. 

From left to right, William C. Eacho and Representative Spanberger with the entrance to National Statuary Hall in the background. June 29th, 2021.

From left to right,  Representative Spanberger, Waverly Dooling, and Representative Malinowski in the chamber leading to the House Floor. June 29th, 2021.

Can you measure the carbon dioxide emissions of the things you buy?

When you eat your lunch, do you ever wonder how many grams of greenhouse gases were emitted in the process of putting it on your plate? And how about that tee shirt you put on this morning?

There’s growing interest in trying to measure such emissions and share the information with consumers. So-called carbon emission labels attempt to determine the total emissions created during manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of a product.

“We think of carbon as the new calorie,” said Prakash Arunkundrum, head of global operations and sustainability at Logitech, the technology accessories manufacturer, which recently rolled out carbon labels on several products, including a gaming mouse and keyboard. “We want carbon to be that thing that you look at and you say, ‘Okay, am I going to really need this in my life today?’ ”

Logitech estimates that its wireless gaming mouse, for example, generates 7.84 kilograms (kg) of carbon emissions throughout its estimated two-year use period. That may be modest, but think of all the products you use. Manufacturing a Ford Focus Titanium costs about 8,000 kg CO2e, The Washington Post’s Jessica Wolfrom reported. That estimate came from Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at Lancaster University in the UK and an expert on carbon footprinting.

The world's first carbon label, the Carbon Reduction Label, was introduced in the UK in 2006 by the Carbon Trust. Some of the first products to feature these labels were Kingsmill bread, British Sugar, and Cemex cement. “Consumers are increasingly engaged on this... as a proxy, they’re looking for companies to show that they are aware of climate change and sustainability and they’re taking action on it,” Carbon Trust CEO Tom Delay told The Post.

One such company is Just Salad, which claims it was the first restaurant to produce a carbon-label menu. While there are tools that can calculate emissions for various agricultural and other products, the challenge for Just Salad was dialing in those measurements for each of the dozens of ingredients on its menu and then for each menu item, according to Sandra Noonan, the chief sustainability officer for the New York-based chain. She told Restaurant Business’s Joe Guszkowski that her company enlisted MBA students at New York University’s Stern School of Business to do some of that “heavy lifting.” 

Due, in large part, to the complexity of the number-crunching, some environmentalists are skeptical of the corporate push toward consumer labels, Wolfram discovered. “Reliable data about carbon emissions consumed in the manufacturing process is scarce,” she wrote, “leaving companies to establish their own methodologies. Carbon labels also are not regulated and require consumers to translate relatively complex scientific terms like ‘carbon equivalents’ on the fly.”

Last year, Priscilla Tsai, founder of the beauty brand Cocokind, began working with a third party to calculate the carbon emissions of her products. She told The Post that the process was cumbersome and expensive, but she believes the labels have been well received by customers. The undertaking also prompted her to reconsider where the company obtains some of its ingredients. She does worry that the labels may confuse some people. “Most consumers don’t know how to read a carbon label yet,” she said. “We are putting out the education and we’re asking consumers to learn with us.”

Panera Bread teamed up with World Resources Institute (WRI) to devise an alternative, Wolfram reported. “The chain began tracking its carbon footprint in 2015, but was struggling to make these complex calculations digestible for customers, said Sara Burnett, Panera’s vice president of food values, sustainability and public relations. ‘We just kept asking ourselves a question like, how do I take this really complicated topic of climate change and literally bring it down to the plate level?’”

With WRI’s help, Panera created a label identifying which meals fall below a threshold of 5.38 kg of carbon emissions per lunch or dinner — a number that WRI says is needed to cut food-related emissions 25 percent by 2030, in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. If the item falls below that level, it is labeled a “Cool Food Meal,” with a grinning green emoji.

Consumer awareness of his or her carbon footprint is a smart way to drive down carbon dioxide emissions. An even better way is to put an honest price on carbon. Encourage those who represent you on Capitol Hill to enact a carbon tax--this year.