Search Climate Insights Directory

Agricultural runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus is a primary driver of water contamination and eutrophication in the U.S., particularly affecting the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico. While the Clean Water Act does not regulate water leaving farmers' fields, various state-level initiatives and federal programs, such as the USDA's Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), promote voluntary best management practices to reduce nutrient loading. Climate change is expected to worsen these issues by increasing the frequency of extreme weather events that trigger higher runoff.

The document details a spreadsheet model designed to quantify the effects of hypothetical green banks in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont from 2017 to 2031. It outlines the financial assumptions, including initial capitalization based on New York's per-capita rates, a 5% borrower interest rate, and a 5:1 private-sector leverage ratio. The methodology explains how funds are allocated across energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics, and community wind, and how these investments are translated into installed capacity, electricity savings, and avoided carbon emissions using data from NREL, ACEEE, and the EPA.

The statement asserts that the shift toward renewable energy is an economic inevitability, citing corporate commitments from companies like Walmart and General Mills and the cost-competitiveness of wind and solar power over fossil fuels in various global regions. It emphasizes that the drive to decarbonize the US energy economy will persist through the actions of states, cities, and businesses, and calls for bipartisan cooperation to protect climate policies like the Clean Power Plan.

Agricultural runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus is a primary driver of water contamination, leading to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes. Climate change is expected to worsen this by increasing the frequency of heavy rains and subsequent nutrient runoff. While the Clean Water Act does not regulate water leaving farmers' fields, various state-level voluntary and mandatory programs, alongside the federal Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), aim to reduce nutrient loading through best management practices like cover crops and no-till operations.

A coalition of organizations and individuals requested federal civil rights reviews of MDEQ and MDHHS, alleging that the Flint water crisis and pollution in Wayne County demonstrate a pattern of environmental injustice. The signatories argue that MDEQ failed to implement required corrosion control and manipulated lead testing, while MDHHS failed to respond to public health spikes and provided inadequate emergency services to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency.

Michigan is positioned to meet its Clean Power Plan target of 21.8 million tons of CO2 (31% below 2012 levels) by 2030. A proposed 'Clean Path Case' involving 30% renewable energy and 1.5% annual electricity savings could drive $13 billion in investment, add 8,300 MW of wind and solar capacity, and provide $4.1 billion in public health benefits by 2030. The brief recommends that the Michigan Agency for Energy develop a mass-based compliance plan and that the legislature expand the Renewable Energy Standard and Energy Efficiency Requirements Standard.

A coalition of organizations advocates for Michigan to prioritize energy efficiency to meet its 2030 Clean Power Plan compliance limits, arguing that such measures are cheaper than new power generation and provide significant economic and environmental benefits.

The Union of Concerned Scientists proposes a "Clean Path Case" for Michigan to meet its Clean Power Plan (CPP) target of reducing CO2 emissions by 31 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. This pathway combines the CPP with strengthened renewable energy standards (RES) and energy efficiency resource standards (EERS). The analysis finds that this approach would result in 8,300 MW of new wind and solar capacity, $11.3 billion in clean energy investments, and $4.1 billion in public health and economic benefits by 2030. The report argues that this transition is cost-effective, with only a modest increase in average monthly household electricity bills (less than $3) compared to a scenario with no new policies.

The World Resources Institute asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court's pause on the Clean Power Plan (CPP) is a temporary measure and that the policy remains legally sound and economically beneficial. The CPP is identified as a critical tool for the U.S. to meet its goal of reducing emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. According to EPA estimates, the plan's health and economic benefits, valued between $25 billion and $65 billion, significantly outweigh the compliance costs of $7 billion to $9 billion. The document notes that many states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri, are already positioned to meet or exceed their targets through existing clean energy policies and infrastructure. Furthermore, it highlights a broader trend of climate action among U.S. cities, such as New York and Chicago, and major corporations like Walmart and Microsoft, while urging global adherence to the Paris Agreement.

The document contends that the U.S. EPA has failed to protect minority and low-income Americans from coal ash pollution, the second largest source of industrial waste in the U.S. It argues that the 2014 coal ash rule is insufficient because it places the burden of enforcement on citizens and allows the continued use of dangerous, unlined coal ash lagoons, which are predominantly located in vulnerable neighborhoods. The text calls for immediate EPA action, including drinking water testing and technical assistance for affected communities, to address these civil rights and public health disparities.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) utilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) to assess the Clean Power Plan. The analysis incorporates modified cost and performance assumptions for various energy technologies, including a rejection of EIA 'learning' curves for mature technologies and specific adjustments for nuclear, coal, and renewables. The study compares four scenarios: a Reference Case, a CPP National Trading Case, a CPP No Trading Case, and a 'Clean Path' Case involving enhanced state-level policies in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Michigan is required by the U.S. EPA to reduce power sector emissions by 33 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The document argues that by adhering to its energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, and by optimizing the use of natural gas and coal plants, the state can reduce emissions by 36 percent below 2012 levels by 2030, exceeding its target by 9 percent.

The document examines the decline of midsize family farms in the U.S., using Iowa as a primary case study, and proposes a national food policy to connect these farms with institutional buyers to create jobs and improve environmental sustainability.

The text describes the evolution of the 'coywolf'—a hybrid of the eastern gray wolf and western coyote—which emerged as a survival mechanism following European settlement, deforestation, and hunting in North America. It uses this example of hybridization to warn that current legislative efforts to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act in Wyoming, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota could lead to the extinction of pure-bred wolf populations due to unregulated killing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists proposes a green bank for Michigan, estimating that an initial public investment of $105 million could leverage $3.3 billion in total clean energy investments by 2030. This financial mechanism would support the deployment of 685 MW of solar capacity and reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 3.9 million tons, contributing 13% of the emissions reductions required for the state to meet Clean Power Plan targets. The document outlines various financial products the bank could offer, such as credit enhancements and warehousing, and identifies existing Michigan programs that could be integrated into this structure.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing various community and environmental organisations, argues that the 2013 National Dust Control Regulations are ineffective due to their reliance on a 30-day monitoring average and the 'crude' ASTM D1739 test method. The letter highlights that PM10 fugitive emissions from mine haul roads account for 49% of total annual PM10 emissions in the Highveld Priority Area. It recommends adopting a pro-active 'best practices' approach and opacity standards similar to those used in Michigan and Utah (USA), and calls for mandatory geochemical and radionuclide analysis of dust from tailings storage facilities to address toxicity and radiation risks.

The author highlights the environmental and health risks posed by coal ash disposal in Michigan, where 65 dump sites—including 48 earthen dams—threaten the Great Lakes and groundwater. The text details the toxicity of heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury found in coal ash and criticizes the lack of liner requirements for dams and the ability to dump waste directly into aquifers. It concludes by urging opposition to H.R. 1734, a bill that would weaken EPA safety protections established in the 2014 coal ash rule.

A coalition of 290 organizations and individuals opposes H.R. 1734, asserting that the bill would weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2014 coal ash rule. The signatories argue the legislation would delay health protections, eliminate public access to information, and remove national standards for drinking water protection, thereby increasing risks to vulnerable communities and the environment.

The report evaluates the NRC's 2014 safety oversight, noting a decline in the number and severity of 'near misses' but criticizing the agency for withholding safety documents, retaliating against whistleblowers, and applying inconsistent oversight standards across different regions.

The document describes the four primary components of the US electricity grid: individual generators, transmission lines, distribution networks, and consumer load. It details the technical differences between power sources, such as the low flexibility of coal and nuclear plants compared to the rapid ramping of natural gas plants. The text outlines the regulatory roles of state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) and the federal Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and notes the three main US transmission networks: the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and ERCOT. It also traces the grid's history from the victory of alternating current (AC) over direct current (DC) to the 'restructuring' of the 1970s that allowed for wholesale competition. Finally, it identifies potential improvements through energy storage, smart meters, and distributed generation like residential solar panels.