The majority of UK parents back the introduction of “pollution exclusion zones” outside schools amid growing concern that illegal levels of air pollution are doing long term damage to hundreds of thousands of young people.

A new study published on Monday by environmental law organisation ClientEarth reveals that 60% of parents want traffic diverted away from school gates at the beginning and end of the school day, with just 13% opposed.

Last year a Guardian investigation revealed that hundreds of thousands of children are being exposed to illegal levels of damaging air pollution outside their schools and colleges – mainly from diesel vehicles.

Health experts have repeatedly warned that exposure to this level of air pollution is doing serious long term damage to children’s health and have described the issue as a public health emergency.

The government has been widely criticised for its lack of action and last week it was defeated for the third time in the high court where its air pollution plans were described as “flawed” and “unlawful.”

Alison Cook, director of policy at the British Lung Foundation, said: “For parents, there is nothing worse than worrying about the health and wellbeing of your child. Yet in Britain we’ve reached a point where children are exposed to damaging levels of air pollution every day. This is simply unacceptable.”

Cook said children’s lungs are far more vulnerable than adults, as they are still developing, and toxic air can stunt their growth.

“Children who grow up to have smaller lungs are likely to have significant health problems in later life, and therefore the negative health effects of dirty air on children need to be given far greater prominence.”

ClientEarth and the British Lung Foundation are launching a new Clean Air Parents’ Network, set up for concerned parents across the country who want to help solve the UK’s air pollution crisis.

Andrea Lee, a senior campaigner at ClientEarth which took the government to court last week, said: “It’s clear from these findings that parents are deeply worried about the air their children are breathing and want something done about it.

“The Clean Air Parents’ Network will help them start conversations and engage with local and national decision-makers who have not just a moral but a legal duty to take urgent and bold action to tackle the illegal and harmful levels of air pollution that are putting their families’ health at risk.”

Monday’s poll, carried out by YouGov for ClientEarth, also found that 63% of parents opposed new schools being built in areas of high pollution; 60% were worried about the effect that air pollution was having on their children’s health and 70% were in favour of the government alerting schools on high pollution days.

The results follow ClientEarth’s third court victory against the UK government over illegal and harmful levels of air pollution across the country.

On Wednesday last week, Mr Justice Garnham ruled ministers’ plans to bring down air pollution unlawful. Following the judgment, clean air in the UK will be overseen by the courts, rather than ministers, in what was described as a “wholly exceptional” ruling.

source:the guardian

Electric vehicles (EVs) continue to gain momentum on the world market.

Global sales of electric and hybrid cars are 63 percent higher than the same quarter last year, and up 23 percent from the second quarter, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report.

China is the top market for EVs, accounting for roughly half of global sales in the third quarter. Europe and North American were the second- and third-biggest markets, respectively.

China offers incentives to help increase the number of low-emission cars on the road.

“The Chinese government is very focused on pushing up EV sales," said Aleksandra O'Donovan, BNEF advanced transport analyst and one of the authors of the report. “One reason for that is the local pollution levels in the cities, and a second is for China to build domestic heroes to compete internationally in this market."

Electric vehicle sales are poised to surge worldwide as an increasing number of countries such as China, Scotland, France and India announced intentions to ban diesel and gasoline cars in order to cut emissions.

Notably, global EV sales are expected to exceed one million units this year for the first time, BNEF said in its report.

Many major car brands have hopped onto the electric bandwagon. Volvo Cars announced in July that every car it launches from 2019 will have an electric motor, marking a "historic end" to the internal combustion engine. Then in September, Volkswagen Group, the world's biggest automaker, announced plans to offer an electric version across the company's 300 models by 2030, and to roll out 80 new electric cars under its multiple brands by 2025. The German company, which is trying to rebound after its emissions-cheating scandal, is investing more than 20 billion euros ($24 billion) in zero-emission vehicles to challenge Tesla.

In an earlier analysis, BNEF predicted that electric cars will outsell fossil-fuel powered vehicles within two decades largely due to plunging battery prices.

The growth of clean transportation is great news for the environment, as the Environmental Defense Fund wrote in a blog post:

"Cars, buses and trucks are the second biggest source of pollution in the U.S. after electricity production. They are responsible for more than 26 percent of emissions that adversely affect the health and well-being of the population, and put communities located close to highways and other major thoroughfares at risk. These communities, typically low-income, are often plagued by elevated asthma rates and other pollution-induced health conditions."

When thinking about ways to reduce pollution, EVs can make a world of difference. And, when charged usingrenewable energy sources, they produce no emissions and can be much cheaper to operate than traditional, internal combustion vehicles.

source:ecowatch

Exposure to air pollution is known to cause a vast array of respiratory health problems, but in a new study, researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health have determined that air pollution can also weaken bones.

The paper, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, is the first to document high rates of hospital admissions for bone fractures in communities with elevated levels of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5).

Unfortunately, as a press release for the study noted, risk of bone fracture admissions is greatest in low-income communities. In the U.S., air pollution is especially high in poorer communities.

For the study, researchers analyzed osteoporosis-related fracture hospital admissions among 9.2 million people between 2003 and 2010 and found that even a small increase in PM2.5 concentrations would lead to an increase in bone fractures in older adults.

A further eight-year followup of 692 middle-aged, low-income adults found that participants living in areas with higher levels of PM2.5 and black carbon (the soot that comes from gas and diesel engines, coal-fired power plants and other fossil fuel sources) had lower levels of parathyroid hormone (a key calcium and bone-related hormone) as well as greater decreases in bone mineral density than those exposed to lower levels of the two pollutants.

The study's authors pointed out that the World Health Organization considers osteoporosis the second leading cause of disability globally after cardiovascular disease.

The researchers noted that particulate matter can cause systemic oxidative damage and inflammation, which could accelerate bone loss and increase risk of bone fractures in older individuals. Just think of smoking cigarettes as an example. Smoking contains several particulate matter components and has been identified as a risk factor for osteoporosis and bone fracture.

“Decades of careful research has documented the health risks of air pollution, from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases to cancer, and impaired cognition, and now osteoporosis," said Andrea Baccarelli, MD, Ph.D., chair of Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School and the study's senior author.

Baccarelli said that the best way to prevent air-pollution-related diseases is through policies to improve air quality.

"Among the many benefits of clean air, our research suggests, are improved bone health and a way to prevent bone fractures," he said.

Since genetic factors are not a major determinant of osteoporosis, the authors suggested that research on the disease should be broadened to examine the impact of environmental factors.

In recent weeks, the Indian capital of New Delhi has been blanketed by a thick cloud of smog. As EcoWatch reported, the air in New Deli has remained "hazardous" for days. Illegal crop burning, vehicle emissions, industrial pollution and dust from sprawling construction sites have contributed to the pollution emergency. By 11 am on Friday, the U.S. embassy air quality data for PM 2.5 showed levels had reached 550, while the safe limit is 50, according to U.S. embassy standards.

source:ecowatch

A new report released this week by the Lancet medical journal details "unequivocal and potentially irreversible" growing threats to public health from climate change. The report found that the delayed action on climate change worldwide has jeopardized human life and livelihoods over the past 25 years, with harms "far worse than previously understood."

A related briefing, produced by the American Public Health Association for U.S. policymakers, highlighted worrisome trends that are affecting Americans' health right now.

Exposure to dangerous heat is increasing.

The briefing noted that between 2000 and 2016, Americans, on average, saw temperatures rise by around 1 degree C. Today, an additional 14.5 million Americans suffer through heat waves each year. The 1995 Chicago heat wave offers a case study in the impact of severe heat on human health. When temperatures exceed 100 degrees F, deaths spike. In that heat wave, more than 500 people died in a single day.

Allergy season is becoming longer.

Rising temperatures are extending the number of days in which ragweed pollen is prevalent, especially in the northern states. Americans faced significantly longer exposure to ragweed pollen in 2016 compared to 1990. In parts of the country, allergy season is three weeks longer than it was a little more than two decades ago. Allergies and asthma are a growing challenge for health professionals.

Disease-carrying insects are covering more ground.

Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vector-borne disease in the U.S. Warmer temperatures, milder winters and changes in seasonal patterns are causing ticks to arrive sooner and linger for longer. They are also reaching larger swaths of the U.S., and it's taking a toll on Americans' health. The number of reported Lyme disease cases tripled between 1995 and 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

While many people see climate change as a distant threat, its impacts are being felt today. The Lancet report found that human-caused climate change "threatens to undermine the past 50 years of gains in public health." But it also noted that cutting pollution by shifting to clean sources of energy, like wind and solar, could be "the great health opportunity of the 21st century."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Nexus Media.

What comes to mind when you think of Tyson Foods? A chicken nugget? A big red logo?

How about the largest toxic dead zone in U.S. history? It turns out the meat industry—and corporate giants like Tyson Foods—are directly linked to this environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, and many others.

Industrial-scale agriculture to support America's livestock is the number one source of water pollution in the country. But while industrial agriculture to feed animals raised for meat is currently resource-intensive and ecologically destructive, it doesn't have to be. Solutions exist which, if adopted, would allow the meat industry and agricultural corporations that sustain it to reduce their impact on water and the planet.

That's why Mighty Earth has launched the Clean It Up, Tyson campaign in order to hold this industry accountable to our communities and the environment. Corporations can and should respect the health and well-being of their customers, and the landscapes that allow them to profit. Considering America's current political climate, and the increasing severity of environmental problems across the globe, collective action and corporate-targeted campaigns like this one have never been more urgent.

In a country with five times as many livestock animals as humans, it takes a lot of land to grow feed for the meat that ends up on consumers' plates. More than a third of America's agricultural land is dedicated towards the production of corn and soy, but humans consume less than 10 percent of this, according to Mighty Earth's campaign report. The vast majority is consumed by livestock.

What many people don't realize is that this livestock feed production is controlled by a very small number of large and powerful corporations, making huge upstream profits, but creating massive downstream pollution. These companies—ADM, Bunge, Cargill (often referred to as the ABCs)—don't have much of a public reputation, as they don't sell directly to individual consumers. Under our current regulatory system, they're also not responsible for their run-off or excess fertilizer use, both of which are classified as "non-point source" pollution. In other words, soil erosion and run-off from enormous swaths of America's crop fields are washing into the waterways, and taxpayers shoulder the burden. These two factors mean that industrial agriculture companies operate with impunity while polluting the land, rivers and oceans.

A recent report by Environmental Working Group found that more than 200 million Americans—more than half of the people in our country—are exposed to contaminated drinking water due to fertilizer pollution. The estimated clean water costs to taxpayers are more than $2 billion per year. The nitrate and phosphorous in fertilizer that leaches into our drinking water are associated with various types of cancers, birth defects and other health problems. This burden disproportionately falls on rural communities, whose water treatment systems were not built to deal with the levels of chemicals they're now facing.

"The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) ordered Pretty Prairie, Kansas, to build a new water treatment plant last year to lower nitrate levels that could cost $2.4 million—well over $3,000 for every person in town," EWG reported. "Eighty-five percent or more of the communities with elevated levels of nitrate have no treatment systems in place to remove the contaminant."

Another alarming characteristic of industrial agriculture is that because it's so intensive, fields are quickly exhausted, and the industry must continuously expand to new areas. For this reason, the American prairie and grassland ecosystems are being altered faster than the Amazon rainforest.

A recent University of Wisconsin study estimated that this loss of natural grassland "could have emitted as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 34 coal-fired power plants operating for one year—the equivalent of 28 million more cars on the road," noted Mighty Earth. These unique landscapes are among the most threatened in the world, and are irreversibly damaged after conversion into crop fields, often to grow corn and soy. At a time in our country when public lands are being attacked from many angles, industrial-scale agriculture to support the meat industry is the biggest challenge these ecosystems face.

Luckily, there are a number of simple, cheap and effective ways in which the meat industry could adopt sustainability measures into supply chains to and protect clean water. For example, currently less than 30 percent of fertilizer applied to massive industrial-scale crop fields is actually absorbed by the plants. Instead, most of this washes off as fertilizer pollution and contaminates waterways.

This is what has caused the largest dead zone in U.S. history in the Gulf of Mexico. It is currently more than 8,000 square miles, where no marine life can survive due to toxic fertilizer pollution. By using more precise application methods, farmers could save money on fertilizer, and less of it would contaminate the water. Additionally, techniques like using cover crops, diversifying crops beyond corn and soy, and limiting tillage are proven ways to reduce soil erosion.

A few months ago, Mighty Earth conducted a comprehensive study into which areas of America are experiencing the worst water contamination from fertilizer pollution (Figure 1), and the most dramatic land conversion into livestock feed crop fields (Figure 2). This groundbreaking research also identified the agricultural and meat industry corporations most present in these areas. The clear culprit driving these destructive agricultural impacts was identified: Tyson Foods.

The country's largest meat company, the second largest globally and the pioneer of the industrial meat system, Tyson Foods produces one in every five pounds of meat: more than 20 percent of all chicken, beef and pork. They are therefore uniquely placed to drive solutions, incentivize their suppliers to farm more responsibly, and reduce the catastrophic effects that industrial-scale agriculture has on the environment and public health.

"Recent commitments from a growing number of food companies like Kellogg's, General Mills, Walmart, PepsiCo, and even Tyson's competitor, Smithfield, are showing the way forward," reported Mighty Earth. "These companies have committed to improve fertilizer and soil-health practices in their U.S. crop supply chains and have launched programs and practices that Tyson and other meat producers can adopt to drive improvements in their supply chains."

Tyson Foods has the power to make these changes too, and therefore to change the entire meat industry for the better—and we have the power to ask them to do it.

Tyson's prior commitments to sustainability are admirable, but don't go far enough. With the demand for meat rising, and the threats to our environment increasing, the stakes could not be higher.

This issue affects all of us. As far back as 2013, the majority of American waterways were contaminated by fertilizer pollution, according to the EPA. That's why Mighty Earth is organizing in communities across the country to ask Tyson to protect our water and our environment. By signing the petition or making a call to Tyson's corporate headquarters (you can use our calling script for pointers), you can add your voice to the rising chorus calling for cleaner meat. Tyson Foods must lead the way to a more sustainable food system and protect the one planet we have.

source alternet

Drivers of the most polluting vehicles must from now on pay a daily charge of up to £21.50 to drive in to central London.

From Monday, people driving older, more polluting petrol and diesel vehicles will be liable for the £10 T-charge, on top of the congestion charge of £11.50, which has been in place since 2003.

The charge has been introduced in an effort to improve air quality in the capital, where legal pollution limits are regularly exceeded. The mayor, Sadiq Khan, said he wanted to prepare Londoners for the ultra-low emission zone being introduced in April 2019.

“As mayor, I am determined to take urgent action to help clean up London’s lethal air. The shameful scale of the public health crisis London faces, with thousands of premature deaths caused by air pollution, must be addressed,” he said.

“Today marks a major milestone in this journey with the introduction of the T-charge to encourage motorists to ditch polluting, harmful vehicles.

“London now has the world’s toughest emissions standard with older, more polluting vehicles paying up to £21.50 a day to drive in the centre of the city. This is the time to stand up and join the battle to clear the toxic air we are forced to breathe.”

The charge came into effect at 7am on Monday. It is applicable to pre-Euro 4 vehicles in the zone, which covers all of central London to the south of King’s Cross station, to the east of Hyde Park, west of the Tower of London and north of Elephant and Castle.

Pre-Euro 4 vehicles are typically those registered before 2006, but Transport for London suggests that anyone who has a vehicle registered before 2008 checks if it is liable for the charge. The total daily levy can be reduced by £1 if drivers register to pay the congestion charge automatically. People living within the zone and driving cars covered by the new charge are eligible to pay as little as £11.05 a day in total for the two.

Speaking to Sky News on Monday morning, Khan said the T-charge would cost about £7m a year, which he said was a “price worth paying”. He added that the ultra-low emission zone, once introduced, would make money that would then be ring-fenced for clean air initiatives.

And he defended the plan against claims it would do little to solve the problem because relatively few vehicles are covered by it, saying it was part of series of measures, including the forthcoming introduction of the ultra-low emission zone.

Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers, said: “Industry recognises the air quality challenge and wants to see London and other cities meet their targets.

“Investment made by the industry into new diesel and petrol technologies has resulted in the most recent cars being unaffected by this new charge in London and, indeed, exempt from any other charges across the UK.

“This new T-charge will affect a very small number of older vehicles so the impact on air quality will be marginal whereas bigger improvements could be achieved by policies which incentivise the uptake of the latest, lowest emission vehicles.”

source:the guardian

Petrol and diesels vehicles will be banned from Oxford city centre under plans to bring in what officials believe would be the world’s first zero-emissions zone.

The proposals aim to slash air pollution in the historic university city, which has seen levels of the harmful pollutant nitrogen dioxide rise above legal limits in some areas.

Under the plans being put out for consultation on Monday, the ban would be introduced in phases, starting with preventing non-zero-emitting taxis, cars, light commercial vehicles and buses from using a small number of streets in 2020.

As vehicle technology develops, the zero-emissions zone will extend to cover all non-electric vehicles, including HGVs, in the whole of the city centre by 2035, according to the joint proposals by Oxford city council and Oxfordshire county council.

The introduction of the zero-emissions zone could see levels of nitrogen dioxide, much of which comes from traffic fumes, particularly diesel engines, fall by up to three-quarters by 2035, the councils said.

Data released by the World Health Organisation last year showed that Oxford was one of 11 British cities to breach the safe limits set for toxic particles known as PM10s. It also breached the limit for PM2.5s.

The city has already won £500,000 of government funding to install charging points for electric taxis, and £800,000 to install 100 electric vehicle charging points for residents, but officials say more will be needed to support the zero-emissions zone. Other schemes being considered to support the zone include reduced parking fees for electric vehicles, electric taxi-only ranks, and electric delivery vehicle-only loading areas.

Councillor John Tanner of Oxford city council said: “Toxic and illegal air pollution in the city centre is damaging the health of Oxford’s residents. A step change is urgently needed; the zero emissions zone is that step change.

“All of us who drive or use petrol or diesel vehicles through Oxford are contributing to the city’s toxic air. Everyone needs to do their bit, from national government and local authorities, to businesses and residents, to end this public health emergency.”

Oxfordshire county council councillor Yvonne Constance said: “We want to hear from everyone who uses the city centre, including businesses, bus and taxi firms and local residents ... Pragmatism will be an important part of anything we plan, but we have set the ambition.”

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, called last month for the environment department to amend the Clean Air Act to allow for the creation of zero-emission zones.

Other cities that have tried to introduce measures to tackle vehicle emissions include Madrid, whose city council ordered half of the city’s cars to be banned in 2016, and Oslo, where the authorities eventually backtracked on a plan to ban all private cars in the Norwegian capital.
source:the guardian

Councils across England could save up to £35m every year if the government introduces a deposit-return scheme [DRS] for plastic bottles and other drinks containers, according to a new report.

Earlier this month environment secretary Michael Gove told the Conservative party conference that he would work with the industry to see how the scheme might be implemented in England.

Campaigners say it would reduce litter and help tackle plastic pollution which experts say risks “near permanent contamination of the natural environment” with potentially devastating consequences.

However, some cash-strapped local authorities have expressed concern that they would lose money as people would use the scheme rather than recycle through local authorities’ kerbside systems.

But Wednesday’s report, based on an analysis of data across eight local authorities including some with high and low recycling rates, found that rather than losing income individual authorities could make savings of between £60,000 and £500,000 each, due to reduced littering and landfill charges as well as there being fewer recycling bins to process.

Allison Ogden-Newton, chief executive of Keep Britain Tidy, one of the groups behind the report, said: “There is no doubt that introducing a deposit refund system would reduce littering in this country but, until now, there has been a concern that it would have a negative impact on cash-strapped councils. This report shows that in fact a DRS would create savings for local government.”

X

Over eight million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans every year, with 80% coming from land. Plastic bottles are a major contributor; in June the Guardian revealed that a million are made every minute and the rate is rising quickly, with annual consumption forecast to top half a trillion by 2021.

At least a dozen nations already have a DRS, in which a small deposit is paid when purchasing the bottle, which is then returned when the empty bottle is brought back.

In Germany and Denmark, which have DRS schemes, more than 90% of bottles are returned. In England, just 57% of plastic bottles are recycled, mostly through streetside collection schemes.

Gove was pressured this summer by opposition parties and NGOs to introduce a DRS in England, and Nicola Sturgeon announced in September that Scotland would introduce a DRS.

In response he announced a four-week call for views to inform how the scheme would be designed. The government’s working group on the issue will also consider DRS for metal and glass containers.

Today’s report was commissioned by Keep Britain Tidy, the Marine Conservation Society, Surfers Against Sewage, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Reloop. It was carried out by environmental research group Eunomia.

It found that local authorities would lose some income as there would be a reduced number of cans and plastic bottles in the kerbside collections to sell to recyclers. However, the savings made from having fewer containers to collect and sort, as well as reduced levels of littering and reduced landfill charges would outweigh the loss of revenue.

Samantha Harding, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “There are no longer any valid arguments that DRS doesn’t work and the environmental case is crystal clear. For our coasts and countryside, the cost of not taking action will be far greater than any incurred by the parts of industry that are trying to block this. Michael Gove can now build on the success of the government’s bag charge and the ban on microbeads by confirming England will have a deposit system.”

Hugo Tagholm, from Surfers Against Sewage, said: “Deposit refund schemes are a tried-and-tested way of dramatically increasing recycling rates while reducing plastic bottle and other container pollution on our beaches, in our streets and across the countryside.

“This report now clearly shows that introducing a DRS for England would also benefit local economies and communities, saving councils money that could be redirected to vital frontline services.”
source:the guardian

The Trump administration will scrap the Clean Power Plan (CPP), President Obama's signature environmental policy aimed at fighting climate change, confirming earlier reports of such a move.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said at an event in Kentucky he will sign a proposed rule on Tuesday "to withdraw the so-called clean power plan of the past administration."

The Clean Power Plan, which focused on cutting emissions from coal-burning power plants, was a major target of the current administration's regulatory rollbacks. In March, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Energy Independence that called for a review of the CPP, which he considers a "war on coal."

And in June, Trump infamously announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, a global action plan to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C to avoid dangerous climate change. Without the CPP, the U.S. will not live up to its pledge made in Paris.

/div>

Pruitt, as Oklahoma's attorney general, made a career fighting EPA safeguards and was part of a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the Obama administration to block the implementation of the CPP. The Supreme Court has since put the regulation on hold until the legal challenge is completed.

"The EPA and no federal agency should ever use its authority to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy," Pruitt said Monday.

According to the Associated Press, the EPA plans to declare that the Obama policy overstepped federal law by setting emissions standards that power plants could not reasonably meet.

"That rule really was about picking winners and losers," Pruitt also said during his remarks. "The past administration was unapologetic, they were using every bit of power, authority to use the EPA to pick winners and losers on how we pick electricity in this country. That is wrong."

Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the announcement in a prepared statement to EcoWatch.

“Repealing the Clean Power Plan will sabotage EPA's most important effort to fight pollution and protect us from climate change," Pardee said. "Undoing the existing plan without any replacement would add years of doing absolutely nothing to reduce power plant emissions. If Scott Pruitt follows through with this repeal, his reckless disregard for EPA's essential duties should cost him his job."

POLITICO reported last week that the agency will now seek suggestions from the public on possible replacements for the CPP but "some conservative groups have pressed for Pruitt to simply erase Obama's rule and offer no replacement at all."

source:eco watch

Reducing pollution from the direct use of fossil fuels in buildings—such as burning natural gas, propane, and fuel oil in furnaces and water heaters—is critical to helping us stave off dangerous climate change and cut harmful pollution.

So finds a groundbreaking new NRDC report.

It lays out a bold yet achievable strategy for slashing U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels, an amount that scientists say is necessary to prevent the worst effects of a warming planet.

The report spotlights the importance of "decarbonizing" direct energy use in buildings, and often overlooked, but critical strategy to reduce carbon pollution. It must be pursued much more aggressively as fossil fuel use in buildings represents about 28 percent of U.S. building energy-related emissions.

There are three main interrelated strategies for achieving deep cuts in carbon emissions from energy use in buildings

1. The first is energy efficiency aka smarter energy use. Better insulated buildings and more efficient equipment within them are critical to achieving the study's carbon goals. But these are not sufficient;

2. Second, switching from space and water heating equipment that burn fossil fuels to high-efficiency electric alternatives, such as heat pumps powered by clean electricity generated from renewable sources;

3. Third, cleaning up the remaining fuels still used in buildings by replacing them with renewable fuels, including sustainably produced biogas produced from landfills, wastewater treatment plants or farms; and synthetic natural gas (aka "power-to-gas") produced by using renewable electricity to electrolyze water and then converting the resulting hydrogen to methane.

Efficient electrification a key strategy

NRDC's Pathway scenario calls for roughly 90 percent of U.S. residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today. The transition would occur as existing buildings are upgraded, and appliances reach their end life and can be replaced with a high-efficiency electric model.

We chose electrification as the primary strategy in buildings in our modelling of how to reach the "80 by 50" emissions reduction target because sustainable sources of biogas are limited, and power-to-gas is prohibitively expensive today—the prospects of renewable synthetic gas becoming competitive with electrification in buildings are possible, albeit a long shot. We, therefore, prioritized the use of scarce and more expensive biofuels and renewable synthetic fuels, in sectors that are more difficult to decarbonize than buildings, such as industrial boilers, long-distance trucks, and planes.

We recognize that this is not the only pathway to decarbonize buildings, and other routes that include higher use of renewable fuels in buildings may also be an option, depending on how technology and the market develop over the coming decades.

The NRDC report comes at a critical time. With President Trump recklessly shrugging off the urgent threat of climate change and rolling back the progress we have made in reducing carbon pollution, it has become imperative for cities, states and businesses to confront the crisis.

Among the actions presenting significant pollution reduction opportunities is a large-scale shift to high-efficiency electric alternatives over fossil fuel-fired equipment in residential and commercial buildings.

Remarkably, space heating constitutes the greatest portion of fossil fuel use in buildings, including roughly a quarter of household energy use, and it tends to influence the fuel choice for other domestic appliances such as water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers. Hot water production is the second-largest component of home energy consumption at 13 percent.

In California, natural gas alone, when burned in furnaces and water heaters, is responsible for roughly half of all carbon emissions associated with energy use in buildings. This is due to both a high reliance on natural gas for heat in buildings and a relatively clean grid which makes electric and uses a smaller share of overall emissions than the national average.

We already have seen progress in making buildings and household appliances more efficient in California and elsewhere through building energy codes and efficiency standards. But we also can convert space and water heating systems that currently rely on fossil fuels for electricity generated by clean sources such as solar and wind power.

Super-high efficiency and flexible appliances

For example, heat pump water heaters are 2.5 to 3 times as efficient as conventional electric models and cut emissions by half or more compared to the most efficient gas water heaters.

Electric water heaters, both heat pumps and conventional models, also enable utilities to tap into their thermal energy storage capabilities, charging during off-peak usage times such as overnight and avoiding using grid electricity on-peak, to help balance the grid and integrate high levels of renewable energy. A growing number of utilities are offering tariffs where off-peak usage also means lower utility bills.

Building decarbonization represents a paradigm shift, as NRDC's report notes. But it's a shift that is both necessary and sensible. To achieve our decarbonization goals, NRDC's scenario calls for electricity to supply about 45 percent of all end-use energy, up from about one-fifth in 2015.

Market and policy barriers

Despite its potential to save energy and reduce carbon pollution, challenges remain to rapidly decarbonize buildings. They include low consumer awareness, limited contractor expertise, and higher upfront costs for high-efficiency products as compared with less efficient models.

In California, NRDC was among a diverse group of 27 organizations that asked the state Public Utilities Commission to revise a policy that currently restricts the use of energy efficiency incentives for projects that involve switching between types of energy; for example a rebate to help pay for switching from a minimum efficiency gas water heater to a super-efficient electric water heater. We're eagerly waiting for a decision.

The technology exists today to significantly reduce fossil fuel use inside buildings. But we must get to work right away. As the NRDC report notes, if we fail to act, we will lock ourselves into a dirtier energy system and may not be able to thwart the most dangerous impacts of fossil energy use to our health, our economy and our environment. The shift to cleaner energy promises to reduce harmful pollution, generate jobs, strengthen the grid, and save consumers money. It's really a no-brainer.

source:Pierre Delforge, Eco Watch