16 Oct, 2017

US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: God, Bad or Ugly

By Konnor Kenneweg, Policy Group Intern, Goeman Bind HTO

The author, Konnor Kenneweg, is a student at the Miami University, majoring in Economics with a minor in Chinese. He is passionate about international relations, environmental issues, and public policy. He currently holds the position of Policy Intern at Goeman Bind HTO, a Think Tank.
Anyone can quote from this paper but due acknowledgement and reference should be given to Goeman Bind HTO, Think Tank.
This paper is approved by Ms. Stefania Lucchetti, Expert Fellow & Leader with Goeman Bind HTO.

In the past 15 years we have seen many incredibly devastating hurricanes that have set records set for largest observed storm surge (Katrina), Largest diameter for an Atlantic Hurricane (Sandy), most rainfall from a hurricane on the continental US (Harvey), and longest maintained category 5 winds (Irma). These hurricanes have cost hundreds of billions of dollars in damage and have economically devastated islands throughout the Caribbean. While Katrina was largely blamed on the insufficiency of the levees and the lack of preparation on the part of both the communities and the response teams, in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy there was an increasing acknowledgement that climate change might have contributed to the severity of the storm.

This season, the relationship between hurricanes and climate change has been the subject of countless articles who frequently posit that climate change is making hurricanes worse by creating more favorable conditions for their development. The increasing traction of this idea in mainstream culture as well as the increasing evidence to support the legitimacy (and severity) of climate change has led even some staunch climate change deniers to change their tune. A recent survey from Politico and Morning Consult found that the number of Conservatives who were concerned about climate change and the impact it is having on the U.S. environment rose by 7% since April[i]. This change in public opinion makes it increasingly difficult for some conservatives to stand with their party’s views on the issue. Following hurricane Irma, Governor Rick Scott (R-FL) drew sharp criticism from fellow state representatives from both parties as well as the mayor of Miami for his unwillingness to acknowledge the role of climate change in the disaster[ii]. Should he change his position, he would follow in the path of many others who have been forced to confront reality. This is becoming more common as more cities find themselves dealing with fallout from climate change related problems.

The Trump administration presents a clear and present danger to the global effort to combat climate change.  However, Trump’s decision to leave the Paris climate accord, while disappointing, is not a huge cause for concern on its own. Ultimately, the decision to leave or remain in the treaty is immaterial. Trump could commit the U.S. to double its emissions and it would do just as much to further the treaty’s goals as a goal to run the whole country on renewable energy by the weekend. The danger of Trump’s administration is not in these symbolic demonstrations but in the policies they espouse, which actually have the power to damage not just the environment, but the economy as well. To fully understand how devastating his administration has the potential to be to the global effort to combat climate change requires an understanding of the nature of environmental policy in the United States.

Historically, coordinated efforts to address climate change have been sporadic and have often been met with substantial resistance. The Paris Climate accord is only the most recent effort, but represents a substantial shift in the global energy debate. One reasons for this is that it, unlike the Kyoto Protocols at the turn of the century, has the support of the United States. While energy and climate policy are by no means new talking points in U.S. politics, discussions around them have always been contentious, and efforts to enact new policy have always been hard fought. However, in the past few decades we have seen real progress on the issue.

When Jimmy Carter was president, he was one of the first to push hard for policies that encouraged the development of renewable energy. In his effort he made public commitments to source 20 percent of nations energy from renewable sources by 2020, and set an example by installing 32 solar panels on the roof of the White House[iii]. George W. Bush, though at times a climate change skeptic, enacted his own energy policies in 2007. His policies, which called for reductions in GHGs, higher efficiency standards, increased investment in alternative fuels, and reduced dependence on foreign oil, were framed in terms of the national security that energy independence would provide[iv]. When Barack Obama took office in 2008, America was in the middle of its worst recession in modern times and climate change was hardly the biggest problem in the eyes of the public. However, when the Obama administration was drafting the ARRA into a law, they saw an opportunity in dark times.  Of the more than $700 billion dollars in stimulus, $90 billion went towards investment, financing, and incentives for clean energy production[v]. Additional funding went to research into battery technology, smart grid infrastructure and making federal buildings more efficient[vi]. These programs represented unprecedented commitment from the federal government to investing in renewable energy generation and, in particular, the importance of environmental stewardship to the Obama administration. Throughout his tenure, Obama worked relentlessly to pass unprecedented environmental regulations on emissions, establish new national parks, and propel growth in renewable energy technologies.

When the nations of the world met in Paris in 2015, Obama committed the United States to the goals of the Paris Climate Accord, the largest global undertaking to-date to address climate change. In the accord, countries set individual emissions reduction goals that together aspired to keep warming below the 2-degree threshold that scientists say is where the impacts of climate change will be disastrous and irreversible. The accord, while generally well received by the public, did draw criticism for a variety of reasons. This criticism came largely from conservatives who felt that Obama’s commitment represented a circumvention of congresses role in the standard treaty process, or from those who were against the accord for ideological reasons. One of the larger opponents of the accord from the start was Donald Trump, who promised in his campaign to pull out of the accord if elected.

Following his election, he fulfilled his promise. While symbolically this is a devastating loss to the global climate mitigation effort, it is also almost completely inconsequential. This is because the Paris climate accord was created under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has no mechanisms for enforcement. As a result, all agreements created within the framework are non-binding and purely symbolic. This condition by itself is a serious obstacle to real global progress on climate change mitigation. However, it also means that there are absolutely no advantages to leaving the treaty. For this reason, Trump should remain in the agreement. It is important to demonstrate continued commitment from the worlds’ major developed countries to the goals they set and also to ensuring developing countries have the financing and support they need to achieve theirs.

As has been pointed out by numerous environmental organizations as well as by Trump himself, even if every country met the goals they committed to, the Paris Accord in its present form would not be enough to mitigate the most serious fallout from climate change by 2100. One of the reasons for this is that most of the countries’ goals, as pointed out by city-journal[vii], are not high reaching.

The U.S. set “reach” goals for emissions reductions and energy portfolio standards; goals that would be difficult to achieve without serious and concerted effort. Achieving these goals would require not only countrywide involvement, but also huge investments into the development of new technologies that could not only generate enough power to satisfy demand, but also overcome the storage challenge that has long haunted the viability of 100% renewable energy dreams. These goals reflected an attempt by the Obama administration to put America in a position to spearhead the effort against manmade climate change. While Obama set a goal that would certainly be difficult to meet, other countries like China and India set goals that they were already well on their way to meet early (though China has stepped up their ambitions since, having deserted plans for over 150 new coal power plants)[viii]. This lack of aspiration from other members is problematic, as it shows that governments aren’t all quite ready to fully commit to the dramatic changes necessary to ensure meaningful progress. This has led to many of the accord’s harshest critics being those who feel that the accord creates more good feelings than progress.

While these criticisms are legitimate, there are very few solutions within the current framework to overcome them. The lack of accountability and the ability of countries to set their own goals are without a doubt one of the largest inhibitors to ensuring substantial gains, however, without these conditions, it would be very difficult (impossible) to even get countries to come to the table. In situations where there can be no alternative to a binding agreement (like the Geneva conventions), countries will begrudgingly submit to them. However, for an issue like climate change mitigation, which has direct implications on the economy, countries are far less willing to make commitments to which they will be held accountable. The problem is not that they aren’t willing to work together or that they don’t care about the environment but rather that countries have historically been extremely resistant to attempts to infringe on their sovereignty through binding international agreements. In a way this is in line with the nationalism that has pervaded international politics. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly criticized the Paris climate accord as a bad deal for the American people; one that he believed substantially hindered our sovereignty. However, the details of his criticisms demonstrate that he fails to fully understand the accord and its potential economic impact.

Trump fulfilled his campaign promise and on August 4th, he officially gave notice to the United Nations that he intended to pull out of the accord as soon as was possible under the rules of the agreement[ix]. Trump stated in his announcement speech that he was leaving the accord for a number of reasons. He asserted that the accord represented a bad deal for the United States while benefiting the rest of the world. To substantiate his point he cited statistics from economists claiming that adherence to the agreement would cost $3 trillion and 6.5 million jobs by 2040. What he didn’t mention was that these statistics were based on estimates that assumed no benefits from adherence to the accord and also a slowing of innovation in renewables. These are not realistic assumptions based on the growth of renewables we have seen as well as continually falling prices of renewable energy.  Trump had other criticisms as well, such as the inability of renewables to handle our energy demands, the goals set by India and China (which he felt unfairly allowed them to continue burning coal while the U.S. tried to cut back), and the minimal impact that achieving the current goals would have on mitigating climate change. He concluded by reiterating that based off these arguments it was not about climate, but about other countries trying to gain a financial advantage over the United States. That was not something he would permit, though he said that he would be willing to renegotiate the agreement. This willingness to renegotiate become the subject of innumerable headlines and discussion, but ultimately matters very little, if at all.

The whole debacle shows just how little Trump understands the whole situation. In his speech he announced, “ United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”[x] He simultaneously acknowledges that the treaty is non-binding and then implies that the “draconian burdens” somehow imposed on us. He does the same thing with the GCF, which is somehow both “nationally determined” and costing us a fortune. The GCF is the one instrument in the accord that Trump could justifiably be upset by, but largely because he fails to consider the positive impact it could have. The only real effect of his departure is that it will be much more difficult to fund the annual Green Climate Fund which was supposed to provide at least $100 billion[xi] in loans and financing from developed countries to developing ones in order to enable them to develop sustainable energy projects and deal with the effects of climate change, many of which will be worse in developing countries. This fund has only received $10 billion to date, and while this surely cannot be entirely blamed on the United States, meager contributions from the world’s largest economy doesn’t exactly inspire other countries to substantially increase their contributions. These contributions have the potential to have huge impacts on developing economies, and these benefits could have positive impacts on the rest of the world economy.

Projects being developed and enacted under the Green Climate Fund include efforts to finance the development of wind power in Egypt and scaling up hydropower in Tajikistan. These efforts will provide these countries with clean and reliable sources of energy that will help enable growth in their regions. In Sub-Saharan Africa, studies have found that only 2 in 5 people have access to reliable energy throughout the day[xii]. Because of the low levels of existing development, investments in renewable energy infrastructure have the potential to revolutionize the region, particularly the rural areas. Facebook’s work to provide limited Internet access to remote regions has demonstrated that providing people with basic modern resources can drastically change lives. Efforts like the Universal Green Energy Access Program in Africa[xiii], which is trying to improve energy access by increasing investment in renewables from financial markets, have similar potential to create jobs and opportunities in remote areas of Africa that have historically been left behind. More opportunities in rural communities will enable greater social mobility and drive development of the region. This also has the potential to create positive effects for larger, more developed economies that would see the emergence of new economies in which to sell their goods. Unfortunately, with the United States out of the accord, it seems even more unlikely than before that the contribution target for the GCF will be met, leaving many developing countries left to deal with energy development on their own.

Other than scaling back contributions to the GCF, Trump’s departure from the PCC is still largely symbolic, but that’s not to say that he isn’t having a real impact on the movement to mitigate climate change. Trump’s real efforts to undermine attempts to address climate change are not at an international level, but rather in his efforts to roll back Obama-era initiatives and regulations that serve a wide variety of purposes. These purposes range from preventing coal mining companies from polluting streams[xiv] to reviewing bans on offshore drilling and opening up federal lands to private interests. A lot of this has been done to accomplish Trump’s promises to reinvigorate the coal industry through deregulation

Throughout his campaign Trump constantly reiterated the need to reinvigorate coal investment, a point that he needlessly brought up in the same speech where he announced his intentions to leave the accord. These efforts are a waste of valuable time and taxpayer money as coal is not as clean or cost effective as natural gas. That is part of the reason why attempts at utility scale “clean coal” through carbon capture and sequestration have been abandoned in 9 states[xv] due to factors like cost overruns, loss of economic viability, or the decision to convert from coal to natural gas. And this lack of success in developing utility-scale clean coal can’t be attributed to a lack of effort or resources, as the Obama administration allocated over $3.4 billion dollars to the research and development of “clean coal” technologies[xvi]. Despite this support, the huge cost overruns and setbacks faced by attempts like the much-publicized Kemper project make it increasingly obvious to investors that coal is not going to be part of the long term solution even with the support of the Trump administration.

The continual demise of coal despite Trump’s efforts reflects a larger idea: While the departure of the United States from the Paris climate accord reflects the direction of the administration, it does not reflect the direction of the economy. This puts the GOP, a party that has long ideologically championed market independence, in an ironic position. Rather than let market forces act on their own, which would reduce the use of coal in favor of cheaper alternatives, the GOP continues to support the industry, inefficiently allocating taxpayer money. While Trump argues that investing in coal will create jobs, he doesn’t make the same argument for renewables, despite a report from the Environmental Defense Fund that found that the number of jobs in the renewable energy sector grew at 12 times the national rate[xvii]. Ignorance of these facts will make it much more difficult for the party to achieve their other goals.

Trump has also repeatedly claimed that he expects to see 3-4% growth, a claim that has been criticized by economists as unrealistic given the maturity of our economy. In his speech he claimed that trying to achieve this goal with renewable energy would cause nothing but brownouts and blackouts, but historical analysis suggests that renewable energy has the potential to play a major role in the path to higher growth. One of the major problems that have resulted in slowing economic growth in America in the recent past has been the difficulty in achieving productive efficiency increases. At the beginning of the last century, these increases were much more profound, as you can imagine the huge impact that new practices like assembly lines had on production efficiency. However, productive efficiency has been increasingly difficult to improve upon in our economy, largely due to its service-oriented nature. However, evidence suggests that there are other ways to increase long-term growth while also creating jobs and achieving energy goals.

In analyses by Picciolo[xviii] and reports for the Climate Institute, a strong relationship between energy efficiency and economic growth has been demonstrated. It is important to acknowledge that causality has not been proven however the idea that higher energy efficiency and lower energy costs will lower costs for businesses and consumers overall is well understood. Lower production costs associated with higher levels of energy efficiency will lead to better margins and higher earnings as well as lower private energy costs for homeowners.

The government’s ENERGY STAR program is a great example of how efficiency investments can be very profitable. The National Resources Defense Council found that the program “saved businesses and consumers $34 billion off their utility bills in 2015, alone, and only costs around $50 million per year to operate”[xix]. And while the administration has put much emphasis on job creation, they continue to back investments in coal despite the few jobs that these investments create. Meanwhile investments in energy efficiency create nearly twice as many jobs per million invested than investments in fossil fuels according to a report by the Environmental Defense Fund. In addition to federal programs, many states have their own energy efficiency resource standards (EERS) that set state goals for increasing annual energy savings. These programs have proven to be very beneficial as states with an EERS achieved incremental electricity savings of 1.2% of retail sales on average in 2015, compared to average savings of 0.3% in states without an EERS according to the ACEEE[xx]. Unfortunately, while some states are setting more ambitious goals, there are others that are moving backwards. In Indiana, the state legislation ended their EERS program and replaced it with a plan that allowed utilities to set their own goals. This has created a conflict of interest where they seek to maintain earnings while they are charged with reducing energy demand. These represent two wholly different objectives and this has led to weaker goals and attempts by utilities to offset their lower demand with higher costs, which defeats the purpose of the policy. Conflicts of interest like this are very common in the Trump administration, which has staffed many positions with industry executives who share his passion for deregulation.

The administrations efforts to undermine the legitimacy of climate science are unsettling as a whole, but the actions of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are particularly worrisome. The EPA and DOE are facing major budget cuts proposed by their leaders. These agencies are responsible for creating and enforcing many of the regulations that will enable us to produce cleaner energy and preserve the integrity of our water supplies and the air we breathe. These cuts represent a serious threat to these agencies’ ability to do their jobs. But budget cut threats are only part of the problem however as these agencies’ leaders are also working against the objectives the agencies were founded to address. The DOE for example, led by Rick Perry, is currently looking into options to override state that have prevented the development of pipelines on environmental grounds. Under the guise of acting in the interests of energy security, he has also been working to compensate the fossil fuel industry for “providing energy stability”. In addition, his department is recommending the EPA ease permitting requirements for new coal plants. The Director of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has also been very busy. He has removed climate change information from the department website, reached out to the Heartland to hire researchers who are climate skeptics[xxi], tried to delay Obama-era regulations on ozone that are projected to produce nearly $6 billion in health benefits[xxii], declined a petition to ban a pesticide believed to cause brain damage in children[xxiii], and enabled mining companies to bypass the Clean Water Act. Additionally, under the instruction of Trump’s executive order, he has been looking into rolling back the Clean Power Plan, which was a major step in reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants that would also boost renewable energy production. The efforts of these two agencies represent huge steps backwards in both our attitude towards public health as well as our commitment to sustainable practices. Unfortunately, in addition to these policy changes, these agencies are seeking to drastically cut government funding to programs that present great economic and environmental opportunities.

The Trump administration has also announced in their budget proposal they plan to sharply cut funding for government research. Their plan calls for reducing funding to the department of energy by $3.1 Billion[xxiv]. This includes a 69% cut to the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the elimination of the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy. These offices do important research into applications like solar power, electric vehicles, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency, which helps spur technological developments in these fields. While other countries around the world like China are investing heavily into developing the technologies of the future, Trump is pulling back our efforts. These cuts undermine our ability to develop innovative products and improve existing ones; developments that are necessary not only if we want to achieve our energy goals but also if we want to be a leader in the growing market for advanced energy technologies. While the cuts are not certain to pass, they are very concerning, as they represent the administration’s disregard for the economies of the future in favor of the economies of the past. This attitude is not shared by all the states however, with many realizing that investments in the green economy create jobs and generate other benefits.

States recognizing the promise of sustained growth in the green economy as well as the potential damage that unmanaged climate change represents have taken action to demonstrate their commitment to ideals of the Paris Climate Accord. In fact, fourteen states have signed the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group created to show their unwavering commitment to the upholding the Paris Climate Accord[xxv]. Ideally these states will set an example that other states will follow, and they are providing good evidence to show why other states should. The Climate Alliance reported that from 2005-2015, “on a per-capita basis, economic output in Climate Alliance states expanded twice as fast as in the rest of the country” while also reducing emissions 5 percent more than the national average[xxvi]. These states’ commitments are impressive, and many are already on track to meet the commitments made by the U.S. in their areas according to a report commissioned by the Climate Alliance. However, these commitments alone without the support of the rest of the nation will only bring down the total U.S. emissions by 15-19 percent by 2025. Fortunately, in addition to these states, over 370 mayors have signed similar agreements committing their cities to the goals of the PCC, with some committing to be completely sustainable by 2030 or 2040. New York City is working hard to reduce building emissions[xxvii], which is one of the largest sources of emissions in the area, while Maryland has committed itself to sourcing half of its energy from renewables by 2030[xxviii]. Just as important as support from local governments is the support of local industries, and many businesses nationwide have taken a proactive attitude towards renewable energy, recognizing that adoption now will give them a competitive advantage if renewable energy requirements become law. But increasingly, due to the falling costs of renewables, they are opting in for the cost saving benefits, like one business in Illinois.

Vogler, a car dealership chain, just finished installing solar panels on the roofs of seven of their dealerships, which are they anticipate will pay for themselves in 5 years. And on top of that, they expect 4 of the dealerships to produce more than they use, allowing them to sell that energy back to the grid[xxix]. Until recently, renewable energy was prohibitively expensive for many small and medium sized companies, but as prices continue to fall and financing is more available we have seen higher adoption rates.

At the same time, many large companies like Mars, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Ikea, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield and Adobe[xxx][xxxi] have come out in support of legislation that promotes sustainability and resource conservation. This is in part because companies recognize that practices that demonstrate corporate social responsibility improve their public image. In an age where consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental damage they contribute to through their purchasing behavior, companies who can leverage their sustainable practices can increase the perceived value of their products or services. Evidence supports this with the annual State of Sustainable Business Survey finding that “49 percent of the companies surveyed, ranked sustainability among their CEO’s top five priorities, and this has increased 35 percent since 2015.”

Prioritizing sustainability and ensuring that goals are met has historically been difficult with one study finding that only 2 percent of corporate sustainability programs meet or exceed their goals[xxxii]. In large part this has been due to the absence of internal incentives, competition for resources, and that sustainability initiatives often suffer in the face of competing priorities. These are real obstacles, but research shows that companies who can successfully implement their plans are rewarded with more than just cost savings. A Nielsen study found that “sixty-six percent of global respondents say they are willing to pay more for sustainable goods, up from 55% in 2014.”[xxxiii] The willingness of customers to absorb some of the costs through higher prices means that even potentially costly sustainability goals can still be profitable. This has resulted in many large companies developing or supporting their own projects in renewable energy. Citi and GE are a good example of companies who are taking a proactive approach to sustainability[xxxiv] and have invested heavily in the Block Island wind farm off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island. Commitments like these are vital not only because they help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but also because their influence might be the only way to redirect the goals of the federal government. By aligning their interests with the interests of the environment, businesses pose the greatest threat to Trump’s argument that the PCA is an affront to the economy

Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris Climate Accord represents an incomprehensibly bad deal for the American people. Moreover, by actively working against efforts to mitigate climate change and environmental degradation, his administration has demonstrated their willingness to ignore one of the largest issues facing our world today. Not only that, but their focus on preserving reliance on fossil fuels reflects their failure to recognize and take advantage of what could be the largest developing industry in the world. Investing in green technologies that promote both efficiency and sustainability creates jobs and opportunities that will provide for families long after we have abandoned coal. This presents the best chance to keep the United States in the PCA. By aligning their interests with the interests of the environment, businesses can force Trump to change sides or risk his reputation as pro-business.


[i] Gheorghiu, Iulia. “More Republicans Concerned About Climate Change After Hurricanes.” Morning Consult, 14 Sept. 2017, https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/14/more-republicans-concerned-climate-change-after-hurricanes/.

[ii] Grunwald, Michael. “Florida Sen. Bill Nelson: Republicans ‘denying Reality’ on Climate Change.” POLITICO, http://politi.co/2w5TlgB. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

[iii] Rauber, Paul. “The Power of a Good Example.” Sierra, vol. 102, no. 5, Oct. 2017, p. 22.

[iv] President Bush Signs H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-6.html. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

[v] Plumer, Brad. “A Closer Look at Obama’s ‘$90 Billion for Green Jobs.’” Washington Post, 4 Oct. 2012. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/04/a-closer-look-at-obamas-90-billion-for-clean-energy/.

[vi] Galbraith, Kate. “Obama Signs Stimulus Packed With Clean Energy Provisions.” Green Blog, 1234903230, https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/obama-signs-stimulus-packed-with-clean-energy-provisions/.

[vii] Institute, Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan. “We’ll Never Have Paris.” City Journal, 1 June 2017, https://www.city-journal.org/html/well-never-have-paris-15231.html.

[viii] “China Halts More than 150 Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Unearthed, 11 Oct. 2017, https://www.unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/10/11/china-halts-150-coal-fired-power-plants/.

[ix] “Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord.” Whitehouse.gov, 1 June 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord.

[x] “Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord.” Whitehouse.gov, 1 June 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord.

[xi] Cooper, Ben. “Paris Climate Partners Resolute but US Cash Will Be Missed – Column.” Aroq – Just-Food.com (Global News), June 2017, pp. 1–1.

[xii] CNN, Phoebe Parke, for. “Why Are 600m Africans Still without Power?” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/africa/africa-state-of-electricity-feat/index.html. Accessed 13 Oct. 2017.

[xiii] “FP027 Universal Green Energy Access Programme – Project.” Green Climate Fund, http://www.greenclimate.fund/-/universal-green-energy-access-programme. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.

[xiv] Sonam, Sheth. “7 Random Obama-Era Regulations Republicans Decided to Roll Back.” Business Insider, 28 2017, http://widget.perfectmarket.com/wwwbusinessinsider/tbbfAd.html?wid=tbx-text-links-h&wmd=text-links-h&wpl=TBXbackfill640x110&ppn=tbx-network.

[xv] Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT. http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.html. Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.

[xvi] Galbraith (above)

[xvii] “Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of U.S.” Fortune, http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.

[xviii] Picciolo, Francesco, et al. “How Crude Oil Prices Shape the Global Division of Labor.” Applied Energy, vol. 189, Mar. 2017, pp. 753–61. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.129.

[xix] Horowitz, 2017 Noah. “Energy Efficiency: A Big Loser in Trump’s Proposed Budget.” NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/noah-horowitz/energy-efficiency-big-loser-trumps-proposed-budget. Accessed 22 Sept. 2017.

[xx] eschwass. “State Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) Activity.” ACEEE, 9 Jan. 2017, http://aceee.org/policy-brief/state-energy-efficiency-resource-standard-activity.

[xxi] POLITICS. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060061307. Accessed 27 Sept. 2017.

[xxii] “The Clean Power Plan.” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/reduce-emissions/what-is-the-clean-power-plan. Accessed 27 Sept. 2017.

[xxiii] Greshko, Michael, et al. “A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment.” National Geographic News, 23 Aug. 2017, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/.

[xxiv] Plumer, Brad, and Coral Davenport. “Trump Budget Proposes Deep Cuts in Energy Innovation Programs.” The New York Times, 23 May 2017. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/climate/trump-budget-energy.html.

[xxv] “U.S. States, Cities Commit to Paris Climate Accord After Trump Pullout.” EnerKnol Research, June 2017, pp. 1–7.

[xxvi] “Trump Pulled out of Climate Agreement, but NC’s Cooper Says ‘We Remain Committed.’” Newsobserver, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article174372096.html. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.

[xxvii] Dennis, Brady, and Kayla Epstein. “New York’s Buildings Emit Most of Its Greenhouse Gases. The Mayor Has a Plan to Change That.” Washington Post, 13 Sept. 2017. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/13/new-yorks-buildings-emit-most-of-its-greenhouse-gases-the-mayor-has-a-plan-to-change-that/.

[xxviii] Dance, Scott. “New Campaign Seeks to Require Half of Maryland Energy to Come from Renewable Sources.” Baltimoresun.com, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/environment/bs-md-renewable-energy-goal-20170913-story.html. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

[xxix] Halstead, Marilyn. “Vogler Goes Green with Solar Energy.” The Southern, http://thesouthern.com/news/local/communities/carbondale/vogler-goes-green-with-solar-energy/article_d3e9354f-06d0-5387-b340-2fcde38c376d.html. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

[xxx] Robert Siegel. “Mars Incorporated Criticizes Trump’s Decision To Leave Paris Climate Accord.” All Things Considered (NPR), June 2017. EBSCOhost, http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=6XN201706012111&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[xxxi] Robert Siegel. “What Leaving The Paris Climate Accord Means For Corporations.” All Things Considered (NPR), June 2017. EBSCOhost, http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=6XN201706022110&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[xxxii] “Why 98% of Companies Do Not Achieve Their Sustainability Goals | Sustainable Brands.” Sustainablebrands.com, http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/organizational_change/libby_maccarthy/why_98_percent_companies_do_not_achieve_their_s. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

[xxxiii] “Consumer-Goods’ Brands That Demonstrate Commitment to Sustainability Outperform Those That Don’t.” Nielsen, http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2015/consumer-goods-brands-that-demonstrate-commitment-to-sustainability-outperform.html. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

[xxxiv] Lawrence, Mike. “GE Energy, Citi Investing in Block Island Offshore Wind Project.” Southcoasttoday.com, http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20161011/ge-energy-citi-investing-in-block-island-offshore-wind-project. Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.

 



Tags: , , , , , ,