Post-COP21 – What Is Next For The American Environmental Movement? (Pt 1)
This is Part 1 of 2 of a short series analyzing the future of the American Environmental Movement.
Victory in Paris
Last December, the international community achieved what had been unreachable for 20 years: a landmark accord that affirms the need to move away from fossil fuels so as to mitigate catastrophic global warming. The diplomats of 196 countries have done their job in bringing the accord to fruition, paving the way forward toward a sustainable future, but now it is time to get to work on implementation. We need to hold ourselves accountable to the trajectory that COP21 has set us on and employ our individual faculties as concerned citizens, lawmakers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and activists to contribute to what will be a long-term endeavor. There is no room for complacency; it is time to get to work.
The modern environmental movement has proven itself a formidable force to be reckoned with in the last couple years alone. Its model—which includes coalitions of intersectional movements that are not traditionally associated with environmentalism; global assemblages that operate without any geographical constraints; a support network that includes leaders in business, finance, civil society, law, and academia; and a popular rhetorical framing (#KeepItInTheGround)—has proven itself effective. The mobilization of these entities and market conditions, such as the tumbling price of oil, has resulted in triumphs such as the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline, the two-year moratorium on further Arctic drilling, the closure of coal-fired power plants around the country, and the stranding of fossil fuel projects worldwide.
Many of these victories transpired at the same time as COP21, which evokes the question of what should come next for the environmental movement. Campaigns to date, such as those of the Keystone XL Pipeline and Arctic oil drilling, have targeted the executive branches of the federal and state governments (such as President Obama and New York’s Governor Cuomo) while hardly paying attention to legislators. Leaders of the environmental movement have aimed at influencing executive branches primarily because Congress has been at a virtual standstill, and there still remains malaise from the botched bipartisan effort in 2009 to enact a national cap-and-trade system. While Congress in December passed a budget extending the investment tax credit for solar and the production tax credit for wind (in exchange for lifting the crude oil export ban), it is highly unlikely that such an outcome will reoccur this year due to the upcoming 2016 election. In light of these factors and the fact that congressional Republicans continue to deny the threat of climate change, it is improbable that the legislative branch will address climate change for the foreseeable future, assuming that the political landscape does not change. Below are ideas for how the environmental movement should proceed, prefaced by an analysis of the global political and economic landscape.
Global Challenges
According to a study in the science journal Nature, 82 percent of today’s fossil fuel reserves must be left underground to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius. By 2017, all of the infrastructure stock that will “lock-in” the emissions that will take the world to two degrees Celsius will be constructed. While solar and wind power costs continue to plummet, and renewable energy continues to account for an increasingly large share of new energy installations, no progress has been made in discouraging fossil fuel production and consumption via policy measures.
Source: Carbon Tracker Initiative
On the production side, there is some cause for celebration. A global commodities glut caused by a slumping Chinese economy, rising interest rates, a strong dollar, and, in the case of oil, booming global production, has exerted a downward pressure on prices and crippled the profits of extractive corporations. With respect to coal, these market conditions, in addition to rising domestic competition from natural gas and strong environmental regulations, have slashed the global demand for coal, with domestic production sinking to its lowest level since 1986. Last month, Arch Coal, the second largest American coal company, filed for bankruptcy, following other corporations that have been forced to do the same just last year such as Patriot Coal, Walter Energy, and Alpha Natural Resources. As for oil, plummeting prices have resulted in the energy sector (which is mostly made up of publicly-traded oil and gas companies) being the worst-performing sector of 2015, with billions of dollars worth of projects canceled or delayed worldwide. With American oil producers demonstrating surprising resiliency, OPEC refusing to relinquish market share by cutting production, the American oil export ban being lifted, and Iran having entered the global oil market now that sanctions have been removed, it is unlikely that the glut will ease in the near future.
(Source: Bloomberg via BBC)
On the other hand, there is cause for concern on the consumption end of the equation. While coal consumption decreased in 2015, low crude oil and gas prices have resulted in Americans buying SUVs in record numbers and driving more than ever. Even though the present-day low-price environment presents a unique opportunity to remove fuel subsidies and tax consumption, Congress has refused to do so despite countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Angola, and Gabon having taken steps to do so in some form. President Obama has endeavored for years to remove fossil fuel subsidies from the federal budget, but Congress has pushed back. Even in the face of lower revenue from inflation and a higher national average fuel economy, the national gas tax has not been raised by Congress since 1993—23 years ago. Given this landscape, how should the environmental movement proceed?
