Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

The Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA) was a commitment by governors of six Midwestern states, including Wisconsin, and the premier of one Canadian province. The objective of the Accord was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a regional cap-and-trade program and other complementary policy measures. The accord aimed to reduce emissions by up to 20 percent by stripping carbon from industries. Signed in November 2007, participating states are no longer pursuing MGGRA.

One of the goals of the MGGRA was to develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism to reach targeted greenhouse gas emissions. This mechanism sets limits on the total amount of GHGs that can be emitted by certain sources and permits those entities under the cap to trade pollution credits with each other. The capped sectors included electricity generation and imports, industrial combustion and process sources, transportation fuels, and residential, commercial, and industrial fuels not otherwise covered. Only sources producing more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide are covered under the accord. Under the MGGRA, the credits were to be compatible with other regional, and possibly federal, programs so that greenhouse gas sources can trade allowances outside the Midwest. Trading creates incentives for producers to develop low cost solutions to reduce emissions.

Creating market incentives is an excellent way to get into action. These incentives encourage industries to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions, helping to fight climate change.

Sources

http://www.wri.org/blog/2007/11/midwest-greenhouse-gas-accord-numbers

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/news/2009/midwestern-greenhouse-gas-reduction-accord-releases-recommendations

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d8aea580-67d2-40c9-8237-e1b26db699cf

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/regional-climate-initiatives/mggra

Final post

In the form of governance, I think that the actors, initiatives, and regulations all play a role and are interconnected in dealing with environmental issues. In my groups’ case, our environmental problem is regarding the adaptation and mitigation of climate change. In the blog posts posted by my blog teammates there is a diverse collection of actors, governance initiatives, and regulations that minimally overlap when addressing adaptation and mitigation of climate change.  I think with our strategy to do this has provided a good framework of climate change and the key components that reveal the strengths and limitations when dealing with such a monumental issue.  Not every actor, initiative, or regulation is unflawed and powerful in harnessing change, but as a collaborative network of different approaches in dealing with climate change, I think that we as a society have a better chance at solving this problem.

As far as the most promising ways forward in addressing climate change, I think that a network form of governance is key. When talking about trying to achieve the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions I think that the Clean Air Act and all of its amendments really stand a fighting chance in combating climate change in the United States by reducing billions of metric tons of GHG’s.  Through regulations that the EPA passes through the help of the CAA, it will hold the big actors and policy makers more accountable for their actions, which contribute to climate change.  Ideally, I would like to see other countries influenced by our laws and policies regarding the reduction in GHG’s and hold these entities with the most contribution in polluting to be held accountable.  My classmate Andy Boinski collected this information regarding the CAA.  Another promising way in addressing climate change is through giving businesses’ and the general public (residential entities) incentives to reduce their carbon footprint. The multifaceted organization that works on mitigating this is Focus on Energy (FOE).  As explained in detail in my past blogs, they do this by offering tax incentives to entities willing to use environmentally conscious technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels, just to name a few.  I think this has great potential because our whole way of life is dictated by economics and money. By having a program that is focused on the environment and climate change, while using an incentive approach, results in a cohesive relationship with a network and market form of governance. 

J.P. Evans “eight hypotheses”, hold some water to our group’s topic, mitigation and adaptation to climate change.  The first one that caught my eye was  “Governments matter”.   Governments obviously give a state structure by shaping markets, creating political views, and creating a sense of accountability to policy makers and the laws that they pass.  The book says, “Given the scale and speed of change required to address climate change, commentators are increasingly advocating direct government action, for example to pump money directly into research rather than incentivizing the market to deliver the right innovations through taxes and subsidies (Lomborg 2007)”. This is a direct parallel with the program, FOE, which I have been writing about in my previous blogs.  I think that having a mixture of the right approaches is critical as well.  Due to the fact that climate change is a global problem there are many institutions, initiatives, and regulations that have emerged to deal with this monumental environmental issue.  Sure it has its upsides and downsides but usually everything does. I also agree with the fact that we are all living in a world in which we don’t live habitually but rather in a way that is reflective upon our actions. 

Final Thoughts

      The actors, regulations, and initiatives we have addressed in previous blog posts all play important roles in mitigating and adapting to climate change in Wisconsin. While they have different levels of strength, they each contribute to solving this problem.

    

     I believe that the Clean Air Act (CAA) has the most potential for mitigating climate change. Under rules imposed by the CAA, greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to decline by billions of metric tons. Under the CAA, the EPA is able to enforce rules that will actively fight emissions that cause climate change. If the EPA can keep these regulations enforced and potentially introduce more regulations, I think it will be the driving force behind the fighting of climate change in the United States. While not as powerful as the CAA, the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) is one of the most important organizations in Wisconsin focusing on climate change. With a network of scientists, decision makers, and citizens, WICCI works to assess and anticipate climate change impacts on Wisconsin and then recommend adaptation strategies for these impacts. While the organization is limited by the fact that it does not have any official governmental power, it does have the power to inform citizens and policy makers about climate change, which could lead to government action. Even though WICCI doesn't make rules, it is socially important as it gets communities to act on climate change.

Action must be taken to avoid potential problems listed in this short video on climate change in Wisconsin

     In our textbook, Evans gives the hypothesis that 'networks and markets are the best thing that we have.' In the situation of climate change, I disagree. If not for laws and regulations, I think a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions would largely go unchecked. While citizens may have wanted cleaner air, industries might not have wanted to adapt to this. Regulations force these industries into action, which is a big help for this problem. Evans also states that 'Duality of structure is critical' and that to achieve widespread change, networks need to be empowered to act in order to address common goals. I believe this is true, if many networks on the smaller scale act together in achieving a common goal, they will create a larger effect. As seen throughout our posts, there are many actors and networks in Wisconsin trying to mitigate or adapt to climate change, each in their own way. Individually, they make relatively little impact on the situation, but as an entire network of fighting climate change they are a huge force. This can be scaled up even further with the CAA. Other nations may see how effective the CAA can be and may possibly adopt similar strategies in the fight against climate change.  I agree with Evans saying 'Governance is about learning.' whether it be initiatives and regulations that work, or markets that fail, we should always be learning on what has or has not worked for us. With this knowledge, future action can be better tailored to the problem at hand and with less and less failures over time, the world will gain a stronger understanding of how to deal with climate change.

The Best to Address the Problem..

Over the course of this blog, we have looked at many different actors, regulations, and initiatives in Wisconsin that deal with climate change. Each has done something to help improve our current climate change situation. Whether it be government regulations like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan, a network of actors like 350.org and the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, a market governance like Focus on Energy, or new initiatives like the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, we have witnessed many attempts to combat climate change. Climate change can not be improved without a combination of modes of governance, all working separately but towards a common goal. The government is good for enacting policies that people must follow. Networks are a good way to bring people with a common interest together to fight for their cause. Markets are important because money incentives make people more likely to move towards environmentally cleaner products and services. So while some actors may be doing a better job of accomplishing their goal, it's important to have all modes of governance on board for combating climate change. Based on what we have looked at in this blog, I think the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, 350.org, Clean Air Act, WICC, and Clean Power Plan have the most potential to address climate change. 

It's going to take a host of actors to combat climate change.

Our course textbook has discussed environmental governance, and Evans concludes by posing some hypotheses about what makes environmental governance work. I address three of the eight that I think apply well to climate change governance.

Getting the right mix of approaches is critical.
Evans states that there "is no magic bullet for solving environmental issues because the problems and potential solutions vary greatly" (Evans, 214). It takes many different modes of governance to combat the problem of climate change. We need actors on all levels using different techniques because climate change is a complex problem and doesn't have a simple fix. We have seen throughout this blog that actors are combating different problems to try to mitigate climate change. For example, Obama's Clean Power Plan is a government regulation that is working to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. While this is an important step in the right direction, climate change is due to more than just carbon emissions. Networks like 350.org and the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters work to influence policy makers. 350.org calls important issues to attention through protests and petitions. They are also working to educate society on our climate change issues. The League works to bring politicians and policies into the government that will improve our climate crisis. They also work to keep those that will make climate change worse out of our government. We can see that our work towards mitigating climate change wouldn't be possible with only one of these actors.

Governments matter.
Governments are an important aspect of environmental governance. They have the ability to shape markets, innovations, and policies. Having the government help work towards a solution is a very important aspect. For climate change, we see that the government has put regulations in place to help mitigate climate change. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan have been important tools to regulate emissions as well as bring problems to public eye. When the Clean Air Act was enacted, many people were unaware of what was causing the air pollution. Furthermore, I think today many people are ignorant or turn a blind eye to how much pollution our power plants release. Government policies can be used to kick-start a new movement of innovations. Obama commented about how he hopes his Clean Power Plan will help lead the world to create other policies and initiatives to reduce emissions, and just in time for the Paris Climate Talks.

Obama at the Paris Climate Talks, 2015. A meeting of world leaders to address climate change.

Networks and markets are the best things we have.
It is unlikely that all the governments of the world will come together and agree on things. While networks and markets aren't perfect, Evans argues that they are the best tool we have for environmental governance. I would have to say, based on the networks I've researched, I would have to agree with Evans. The U.S. government has done some really great things to help with climate change, but it has take years to do so. With climate change being an ever pressing issue, we need to see changes occur faster. Networks like the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters are working to make policy changes at a quicker rate simply by voting. When a group of people come together for a common cause, they can achieve more. We've also looked at 350.org, which networks around the world to demand changes from the norm to combat climate change. Markets are also important to incentivize cleaner technologies. FOE encourages customers to purchase cleaner energy products and services. 

Sources;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/fact-sheet-president-obama-announce-historic-carbon-pollution-standards 
http://350.org/ 
http://conservationvoters.org/about/nonpartisan/ 
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTwMYdEkIYJ-SZBnvoCYasJIGnZ09sWANY8H41QfzJ5D7HFI7fEw
http://www.unep.org/NewsCentre/InsertImage.asp?ImageSizeID=3&DocumentID=629&ArticleID=6641

Clean Air Act

     The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.  Established in 1970, the CAA aims to clean and protect air in the United States.  The law authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.  If an air pollution is determined to be harmful to the health and welfare of current and future generations, it becomes an issue for the CAA.

     

     This is the case with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.  In 2009 the EPA found that these emissions are harmful as they cause climate change and ocean acidification.  These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases and are produced by human activities.  Scientists warn that climate change can lead to more intense weather events causing deaths, and damage to property and infrastructure, among many other problems.  In the past few years, under the CAA, the EPA has been taking steps to limit greenhouse gas pollution.

Growth Areas and Emissions since the inception of the Clean Air Act in 1970

     Between 2010 and 2012, the EPA and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration issued national greenhouse gas emission standards and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks for model years 2012-2025.  These standards are estimated to save 4 billion barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons over the lifetimes of light duty vehicles produced in 2017-2025.  In 2011, the EPA and states began requiring preconstruction permits that limit greenhouse gas emissions from large new stationary sources.  As Kelsey has written about, in August of 2015, President Obama and the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, which is a partnership created by the CAA.  In July of 2015, the EPA finalized a rule that prohibits certain uses of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases.  These HFCs can be found in air-conditioning, refrigeration and other equipment.  With new technologies for this equipment and with the new rule, HFC emissions are estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of 54 to 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025.

     

     Along with the reduction of greenhouse gases, the EPA is also working on protecting the ozone layer.  Under the Clean Air Act there are programs to ensure refrigerants and fire extinguishing agents are recycled properly, ensure that alternatives to ozone-depleting substances are evaluated for their impacts on human health and the environment, and ban the release of ozone-depleting substances during work on air conditioners and other refrigeration equipment.  The EPA also plans to phase-out ozone-depleting substances and continue to minimize the release of chemicals in use.

     The EPA encourages the development of products, technologies, and initiatives that reap co-benefits in climate change.  All of these regulations being taken by the EPA and other actors under the CAA are a good steps towards mitigating the problem of climate change in the United States.  It also encourages other nations to adopt similar strategies to reduce emissions to solve climate change.

Sources

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/B1C42A422851C64685257E760057D08F

Focus on Energy and Market Governance

The program I chose to revisit is the Focus on Energy program, also known as the FOE.  This is Wisconsin’s statewide energy-efficiency and renewable resource program that “encourages utility customers to reduce fossil fuel consumption by providing incentives for customers to purchase products and services that are energy efficient or use renewable energy sources”.  The way this works is that there are three different components that make it possible for this program to work.  First of all, the program is funded by utility customers and program administrators whom work with private firms who provide financial incentives for the programs participants. Secondly, private contractors who supply and install energy efficient tools administer the program. For example; wind turbines, solar panels, energy efficient windows and many other resourceful tools that can be used to make a residential or non-residential entity more energy efficient. Finally the FOE program is entirely overseen by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, (PSC), which is a state government entity that mainly deals with the compliance of state and federal laws and makes sure that everything this program is trying to achieve is legitimate and sound.   

The Focus on Energy program mostly exemplifies the market mode of governance.  Unlike network governance, which involves voluntary participant partnerships between an array of diverse investors to build an accord and the collective will and ability to act around a specific issue, a market form of governance uses financial tools and incentives to direct collective action. Like I said earlier this is purely market-based approach of governance because of the financial incentives given to residential and non-residential entities.  Financial incentives are also given to the companies who produce and manufacture these energy efficient tools, which demonstrates that money is the key factor in making this wheel go round.  Everyone benefits in someway or another.

The actors who are involved in the Focus on Energy program consist of an array of diverse entities.  Obviously the state government is involved in overseeing the program as well as dealing with legal issues and complying with state laws and ordinances.  

As far as utility groups that are involved I will just name of few out of the many companies involved. Here are just a few of a large list; Adams-Columbia Electric, Cooperative Algoma Utilities, Alliant Energy, Arcadia Electric Utility, Argyle Electric & Water Utility, Bangor Municipal Utility, Barron Light & Water, Belmont Municipal Light & Water, Benton Electric & Water Utility, Black Earth Electric Utility, Black River Falls Municipal Utilities, Bloomer Electric & Water Utility, Boscobel Utilities, Brodhead Water & Light, Cadott Light & Water Department, Cashton Light & Water, Cedarburg Light & Water Centuria, Municipal Electric Utility, Clark Electric Cooperative, Clintonville Utilities, Columbus Water & Light Consolidated Water Power Company, Cornell Municipal Light Department, Cuba City Light & Water, Cumberland Municipal Utility, Dahlberg Light & Power Company, Eagle River Light & Water Utility, Eau Claire Energy Cooperative, Elkhorn Light & Water, Elroy Electric & Water Utility, Evansville Water & Light Fennimore, Municipal Utility Florence Utilities and Gresham Water & Electric Plant.  There are about thirty more but I think you get the idea. As far as other non-profit or governmental agencies being involved there are none.

https://focusonenergy.com/about/participating-utilities

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/1 http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/wi_fact_sheet_final.pdf1-13highlights.htm

Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters

The League of Conservation Voters is a network of people coming together to bring Wisconsin back to its nonpartisan conservation ways. We used to be a model for the nation of Democrats and Republicans working together to do what is best for the land. The nation has seen many conservation leaders come from Wisconsin, including Gaylord Nelson and Aldo Leopold. This group is looking to move our politics back to being able to accomplish great things. As they say, here in Wisconsin the one thing that unites us all is the land. The WLCV was founded on the principle that our natural resources should not be used as a political pawn. Regardless of who is in charge, we need to protect our land, air, and water. 

They lead the way in conservation by working with many different actors, operating with integrity, and keeping focus on our natural resources, not politics. The WLCV engages with many individuals to get many different viewpoints and political persuasions. They work with grassroot groups, elected officials, and regular citizens. They keep all of their positions publicly available so that people are aware of what they are working on at all times. Most importantly, they focus on issues affecting the air, water, and land.

The WLCV has diverse board of directors that bring in many different viewpoints. People working as professional engineers, English professors, retired attorneys, and even former Kohl's vice presidents are advising the league on what is important and what needs to be worked on. In addition to this they get the viewpoints of everyone from grassroot groups to elected officials. They work as a community to take action and rely on their members to be an active part of the society. 

The WLCV believes that we can combat climate change if we act quickly. Here in Wisconsin, we have the ability to harness clean energy that will help reduce our negative impact on the climate while also providing new jobs, giving Wisconsin energy independence, and strengthening the economy. In order to achieve this goal, the WLCV must: support the clean, safe, renewable generation of energy; support the safe, efficient transportation of energy; and support the conservation of energy. 

Here in Wisconsin, the effects of climate change are already being felt. That is why WLCV has teamed up with partners at the League of Conservation Voters to create the campaign "Climate Action Wisconsin". They are demanding that Senator Ron Johnson stop denying climate change and do something to help fix our problem. As I mentioned in my last blog post, Obama recently enacted the Clean Power Plan, which is supposed to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions. Ron Johnson, along with Scott Walker and Brad Schimel, are opposing the Clean Power Plan and suing the federal government for its limitations. Ron Johnson denies climate change by saying it is just "sunspot activity". Currently the WLCV is working to hold people like Ron Johnson responsible for denying climate change, as well as petitioning to support the Clean Power Plan. 

Here is their newest add against Ron Johnson:

Each week they also update their newsroom, which lets voters know which bills and plans are being worked on in the government. They provide an explanation of why they think voters should be opposing or supporting. This weeks NEWSROOM notices are: support LRB 2463: Improving Rail Safety, support LRB 0761: Reestablishing a Wisconsin Conservation Corps, and oppose LRB 3793 & LRB 3830: Privatizing Wisconsin’s Water. You can use the link above for more information. 

For more information on the Wisconsin League of Conservation you can visit their website, their facebook, or their twitter account. 

Sources

http://conservationvoters.org/about/nonpartisan/ 

http://conservationvoters.org/issues/energy-and-climate/ 

http://conservationvoters.org/issues/forward-on-climate-change/
http://conservationvoters.org/about/board/ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Sv0StGvOQ