Is the Promise of Natural Gas Waning?

1024px-Rig_wind_river

By Paritosh Kasotia

The final Clean Power Plan released on August underplays the role of natural gas in reducing carbon emissions in comparison to the draft Clean Power Plan rules released in 2014. According to the America’s Natural Gas Alliance President Martin Durbin, initial indications from the final Clean Power Plan rues indicate that the White House discounted gas’s ability to reduce GHG emissions quickly and reliably while contributing to growth and helping consumers.

For the last few years, natural gas was considered to be a bridge between carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and the clean energy of the future. Given that natural gas releases 50% fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal, it was certainly a great substitute. However, the recent growth in the renewable energy industry is quickly proving that we may not need this bridge fuel after all.  Here is why.

1. Cost of utility-scale renewable energy on par with natural gas: According to the financial advisory firm Lazard, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for natural gas ranges from $61 to $87/MWh, $60 to $72/MWh for solar PV and $37 to $81/MWh for wind. Wind clearly fares well but solar is also cost-competitive with natural gas. While analysts believe that renewable energy sources are only competitive with subsidies, data shows that even without subsidies, renewable energy can compete with conventional energy sources as demonstrated by recent examples such as Austin Energy which signed a 20 year solar PV power-purchase agreement at a rate less than 5 cents/KWh. Similarly, Public Service Company of Colorado has plans to purchase electricity generated by Sun Edison’s 156 MW solar power plan via a 25 year power-purchase agreement. The continuous drop in the hardware and soft cost of solar PV negates the use of natural gas as a substitute for coal. Many utilities will likely jump directly to solar or wind to meet their generation needs. Improved battery storage technologies and reduced cost will aid in this transition. The battery storage start-up Eos Energy Storage is certainly headed in that direction. Earlier this year, Eos Energy Storage introduced its grid scale 1 MW Aurora battery energy storage system which provides four hours of discharge that is cost-competitive with gas peaking generation. Currently, the company has project agreements with Consolidated Edison, GDF SUEZ, and Pacific Gas and Electric.

2. Increased EPA regulations for oil and gas: In order to meet President Obama’s ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production by almost 45% by 2025. While environmentalists tout these steps as necessary to curb climate change, many oil and gas representatives see this as a step to restrict the growth of the booming natural gas industry and put an undue burden on the industry. If the production costs for the natural gas industry climb up due to increased regulations and the production cost of clean energy continues to decline, clean energy will likely emerge as the winner in the future energy generation mix.

3. Public resentment against fracking: The biggest factor that led to the boom in the natural gas industry is the technological breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing or fracking. But, this has not come without the skeptics. For the last few years, environmentalists and public health advocates have been suspicious of the impact of fracking on water quality, seismic activity, and other hosts of environmental and public health issues. Most recently, University of Texas came under fire for allowing fracking on the land owned by the University. A research report published by Environmental Texas Research, Policy Center, and Frontier Group demonstrates the impact of fracking on public health and the environment. According to NRDC, studies have also shown dangerous levels of toxic air pollution near fracking sites as well as increase in risk of cancer and birth defects in neighboring areas due to oil and gas production.

A number of environmental advocates recently notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their intent to sue if EPA does not update its fracking rules. The last time rules were updated was in 1988. This means that all the current fracking activity in the last ten years has not been regulated to the extent it should have been.

4. Volatility in the Natural Gas market: Despite the surge in the natural gas market, price volatility is a serious factor that needs to be accounted for. Since fracking is an unconventional form of gas extraction, the cost of drilling and extraction will continue to see an upward trend. As explained by Fortune magazine, natural gas extraction through unconventional ways such as fracking is marked with a short life compared to a conventional fuel extraction. This means that existing wells deplete at a much faster rate, thereby necessitating the need to build new wells, which in turn, increase the cost of natural gas. Due to this, energy consumers are hedging against this market volatility by increasing their reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind as it provides a continued stream of energy at a predictable price over a long period of time.

The natural gas industry is faced with a number of challenges that need to be addressed for it to safeguard its interests and protect its image as a clean energy source. If EPA acts on updating the rules and regulations, and the public and the business community continue to embrace clean energy sources such as wind and solar, the natural gas industry may soon be forced to fall into the footsteps of the coal industry.

Utilities Once Again Add to Iowa’s Confusing Solar Market

By Paritosh Kasotia

As the price of solar plummets, many consumers are going solar. This has led some utilities to seriously assess what it means for their business and how do they continue to maintain the power grid with fewer electricity sales. Recently, Pella Electric Cooperative introduced a surcharge of $85 per month for those who install solar PV systems to cover the fixed costs associated with the grid. This has certainly raised eyebrows among solar proponents as well as industry experts. The current debate is what is a fair charge? Another equally important question is if customers already pay basic facility fees and user charges, why is there a need for an additional charge? On top of all this, it is worth noting that Pella Electric Cooperative does not offer net-metering to its customers unlike investor-owned utilities that are required to provide net-metering.

net-metering1

It is no doubt that solar customers benefit from the grid infrastructure when their solar PV system is not generating enough power. To solve this, utilities across the nation have proposed to assess a flat fee on customers’ bills. For instance, New Mexico’s utility, PNM proposed a $30/month distributed solar generation fee to cover the fixed costs related to the grid. Arizona imposes a similar surcharge which amounts to $5 per month or $0.70 per kW fee on utility bills. California applies a $10 monthly fee for its solar customers. But, none of these numbers are close to what Pella Electric Cooperative assessed. Even so, solar industry advocates argue that there is no need for a monthly surcharge because this arrangement fails to take into account the benefits of solar PV.  These benefits range from reducing carbon emissions, easing transmission lines congestion and system inefficiencies, as well as reducing peak demand. An objective analysis would ask utilities to apply a monetary value to the benefits it receives from customers installing solar PV. In 2013, Minnesota’s Energy Office provided guidelines to utilities to explore a value-of-solar tariff which includes cost-savings and environmental benefits. This approach also takes into account the unique nature of each utility provider and offers an objective and transparent process to assess the value of solar.

This story also calls into question a utility’s rate structure design. In any business model, if a consumer is not utilizing an infrastructure, it should not have to pay for it. Pella Electric Cooperative recovers its fixed costs under the fixed charges as well as variable charges of the utility bill. If that is the case, then in all fairness, consumers that are receiving less energy from the utility should logically pay less for the infrastructure charges, not the other way around. Conversely, if each consumer is equally responsible for the infrastructure, the fixed cost should be equally divided among consumers and not vary depending on the electricity consumption.  It can be compared to dues of a Homeowners Association. A homeowner’s monthly due does not change based on how much or how little she uses the amenities offered by the association. By affixing fixed cost recovery under variable charges, Pella Electric Cooperative is essentially charging customers more if they consume more electricity and therefore, logically should charge less if consumers are consuming fewer watts. The utility cannot benefit both ways by introducing a solar surcharge to make customers pay even when they are using less energy.

Another topic that should be examined closely is the emerging role of battery storage technologies. Tesla’s new Powerwall provides options for off-grid scenarios as well as battery backup. Powerwall was launched in 2015 and costs about $3000 for a 7kWh model and $3,500 for the 10 kWh model in addition to the installation price of $500. This price range is fairly reasonable and affordable for those who are already installing solar PV systems. Customers that add Powerwall or any similar battery storage technology will create other hosts of issues for utilities that need to be addressed. If a homeowner is able to completely eliminate the need for power from the utility but are connected to the grid, are they still obligated to pay for the system costs and if so, what regulations or tariff systems would then be proposed to make the customers pay for the grid?

Instead of skirting around these issues, Iowa state agencies such as the Office of Consumer Advocate, Iowa Utilities Board, and the Iowa Energy Office should take a proactive role and form a stakeholder group to begin discussions on these topics. Unexpected news such as Pella’s surcharge or Alliant Energy’s recent stand on refusing to net-meter solar PV customers that utilize a power-purchase agreement and later reversing its stand only adds confusion and uncertainty. All the more, this is not good rule-making process. The consumers’ demands and expectations of its utility providers are significantly different from yesteryears and call for a new approach in this changing energy industry.

UPDATE: As reported by Midwest Energy News, Pella Electric Co-operative has now withdrawn it’s proposed fee for solar customers. This is good news for solar owners but also points to the fact that more information and awareness is needed for all stakeholders to really understand what is the true value of solar PV to utilities and to the grid.

What The Clean Future Might Be?

By Paritosh Kasotia

August 3rd will be remembered as a day when the US government took a bold step to set first-ever limits on power plant carbon emissions and make a serious attempt at tackling climate change. While this should be a great news for all of us, certain special interest groups will try their best to hamper its implementation.

022

In order to move forward, we must look back and reflect on decades of progressive work undertaken by our citizens and our leaders that has improved our air and our quality of life. This astounding progress has been made possible by the same Clean Air Act under which the Clean Power Plan is rolled out. Critics have long argued that environmental regulations put an undue burden on businesses and harm the economy. But, the reality is far from this. From 1970 to 2012, the aggregate national emissions of six common pollutants dropped by 72% while gross domestic product grew by 219%. These are real numbers and we need to remind ourselves of these. How many of us think back and say, “only if we had not passed the Clean Air Act, we would have saved thousands of jobs”. My guess is none.

Presently, the pessimists have given us all worst-case scenarios to dissuade EPA from moving forward with the Clean Power Plan. These range from utility rate increases to grid reliability risks to undue burden on low-income households. We have also heard that it will have an irreparable impact on the economy and will increase jobless rate. While these critics talk, utilities, cities, and states have already begun the process to reduce emissions. And these are not your usual suspects. For example, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), under its 2015 Integrated Resource Plan, plans to add clean energy into the power grid and concludes that this effort will neither increase electricity costs nor disrupt the grid reliability or create blackouts. Locally, MidAmerican Energy plans to get 57% of its energy from wind through its latest renewable energy project.

No one has promised that the transition to a clean energy economy will be quick or easy. But it is a needed step to protect our ecosystem. Instead of putting barriers, we need to build each other up and focus our collective strength to devise solutions that result in marginal loss and maximum impact. If done right, clean energy can strengthen our economy, create jobs, and generate long-term real wealth. We cannot afford to protect the short-term interests of a few at the expense of the well-being of the common.

Seventeen years from now, we will look back and say this was a step in the right direction. And our future generations will thank our leaders of today for being bold, visionary, and having the courage to make tough choices.

Major utility’s about-face is big win for solar power in Iowa

Courtesy of Bleeding Heartland http://www.bleedingheartland.com/

One of Iowa’s major investor-owned utilities has changed a policy that was impeding new solar power projects, Karen Uhlenhuth reported for Midwest Energy News over the weekend. Follow me after the jump for background and details on this excellent news.

Background

The relatively high up-front cost of installing photovoltaic panels has long been a barrier to expanding solar power. Third-party purchasing agreements have become a popular way around that problem. The concept is simple:

A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) is a financial arrangement in which a third-party developer owns, operates, and maintains the photovoltaic (PV) system, and a host customer agrees to site the system on its roof or elsewhere on its property and purchases the system’s electric output from the solar services provider for a predetermined period. This financial arrangement allows the host customer to receive stable, and sometimes lower cost electricity, while the solar services provider or another party acquires valuable financial benefits such as tax credits and income generated from the sale of electricity to the host customer.

Get the full story by clicking here

 

Third Island in the Seychelles Fully Powered by the Sun with Big Help from Crowdfunding

International Perspectives

By Chris Caird, Unfolding Energy Summer Intern

To see the full story on this topic that appeared on July 5, 2015, click here

Cousin Island, a special conservation reserve became the third island in the Seychelles archipelago to become carbon neutral with the help of solar power. Three islands out of the 115 total in the Seychelles archipelago doesn’t seem like a great accomplishment but it’s a big step in the right direction, and there are many that feel the same way because the solar project on Cousin Island was partly funded by a crowdfunding website, Indiegogo.

330px-Cousin_island

Solar energy is an ideal energy source in this part of the globe because of a reliable sunny climate, taking away some of the problems associated with solar power. Issues such as intermittency of this technology usually doesn’t allow for a steady source of energy in most parts of the globe, but as electric storage keeps improving, expanded transmission capacity gets better, and operating costs keep dropping, the technology will only expand. These are issues why in the US or the UK, for example, we can’t simply switch over to rely on a power source like solar, even though in some US states, it is becoming a possibility but overall it’s not feasible yet and new and more efficient innovations are needed.

Incentives are required for encouragement of new innovations, or to simply give the general population a little push into an environmentally-friendly direction. This is something the Seychelles Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, Didier Dogley is doing with plans to provide at least 5 megawatts of electricity to the island of Mahe, the most populated island of the archipelago. Keeping in mind the total population of the Seychelles is a little over 90,000, it’s hard to compare the numbers to what it would take to power the public demand of US population of almost 320 million. Crowdfunding on this scale seems unlikely as a dependable source of financial support but could be a model for community based solar projects and for rural towns with smaller populations or even residential buildings etc.

A few examples the Seychelles Islands president, James Michel is using to encourage the Seychellois population to use renewable energy:

  • Providing support (financial and technical) to homes that wish to install solar panels and granting subsidies to families that fall in certain categories.
  • Requiring new housing development to have solar panels installed with the support of the subsidies.
  • Providing incentives through a financial rebate scheme, allowing small businesses and private dwellings to invest in solar technology at a rebate of 35% on installation.

While the solar industry in the US is hot, it is also taking strong hold in other countries where the demand and the need for clean energy solutions is clearly on the rise. Examples like this demonstrate that solar PV applicability is boundless and with right incentives and support, it can meet the energy needs of tomorrow.

National Black Chamber of Commerce is wrong on EPA plan

By Paritosh Kasotia

This article appeared as a column on The Des Moines Register on June 25, 2015

In a Register column published on June 23, Harry Alford, CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, asserts that the EPA Clean Power Plan will pose undue economic hardships on the 280,000 blacks and Hispanics in Iowa. This is far from the reality. Minority populations already face economic hardships due to high costs of electricity and health. Research shows that low-income households pay nearly a quarter of their income on energy costs; 62 percent of Hispanic households and 67 percent of black households are low income.

When the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented by 2030, electricity bills will be reduced by an estimated 8 percent. This is significant, especially for low-income households. In addition to reduced carbon emissions, the plan will reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates that significant affect the health of low-income households located near fossil-fuel power plants. Studies have also shown that Clean Power Plan will create employment opportunities for many in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is a golden opportunity to train and empower minorities so that they benefit from the economic prospects of this rule.

We have to also question whose interests the National Black Chamber of Commerce represents. A poll conducted by Harstad Strategic Research Inc. on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) finds that 70 percent of Latino and African-American voters support the Clean Power Plan in nine battleground states. Another poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University, and Resources for the Future finds that a majority of Hispanic-Americans rate global warming as “extremely” or “very” important and feel that the government should take action to address it. The Clean Power Plan is precisely the kind of action these individuals seek.

Another black leader, Michael Dorsey, who is the interim director for the Energy and Environment Program at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies sums it well by saying, “Alford’s false claims about energy are a triple threat — they harm African Americans in their wallets, they harm them in their lungs, and they threaten the environments they live in…”.

Divestments and the Risks of Stranded Assets

682px-US-WA-Olympia-Capitol-StopCoalTrain-2013.01.14-007

By Paritosh Kasotia

As the dialogue on divestment and carbon free economy increases, it is creating an increased risk for assets commonly referred to as “stranded assets”. University of Oxford’s Stranded Assets Programme describes it as “assets that have suffered from unanticipated or premature write-downs, devaluations or conversion to liabilities.” It goes something like this. The international community of climate scientists have warned us that the global temperatures should remain at or below 2 degree Celsius to avoid the irreversible catastrophes of climate change. According to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, our current energy consumption may result in an increase of global temperatures to 3.6 degree Celsius. In order to keep the temperatures at or below 2 degree Celsius, we have to leave two-thirds of current fossil fuels on the ground. As climate change leaders and environmental activists increase the pressure on our world leaders, investors, and businesses to subside the use of fossil fuels and switch to clean energy choices, it puts the fossil fuel assets in grave danger of being deemed worthless.

Yet, fossil fuel companies continue to increase their carbon-intensive fuel stockpile. Data shows that carbon locked up in coal, oil, and gas reserves owned by the world’s largest fossil fuel companies increased 10%  for a total of 555 gig tons of CO2.

Because of the growing risks of climate change and a call for carbon-free economy, investments in fossil fuel companies is a bad business decision and a financial risk. The climate change advocates have seized this opportunity which has led to a growing movement of NGOs, students, environmental activists, and others to call on large investors to divest from the carbon-rich investments.

What is divestment? In the fossil fuel industry, the term divestment refers to getting rid of stocks, bonds, or other investment funds that are invested in fossil fuel companies. Divestment minimizes the risks for the investors and at the same time gets us closer to a carbon-free economy.

Divestment from fossil fuels is being compared to famous past divestment movements such as tobacco and Apartheid in South Africa. In addition to the environmental argument, it carries with it significant tones of moral argument. Divestment movement has received noteworthy endorsement from high-profile individuals such as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor of Economics Paul Krugman, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, and many others.

The divestment movement is getting bigger and more effective day by day. According to Arabella Advisors, 181 institutions and local governments, and 665 individuals representing over $50 billion in assets, have pledged to divest from fossil fuels. These institutions are comprised of universities, faith-based organizations, philanthropies, local governments, and healthcare providers. EY’s Global Corporate Divestment Study also finds that divestments will be a core component of companies’ capital strategy in the next year. This will be driven by investors who will demand improved portfolio performance and shareholder returns.

Famous examples of divestments include Stanford University, City of Seattle and City of San Francisco. City of Seattle was the first city to commit to divest from fossil fuel investments. Additionally, foundations such as Ben and Jerry Foundation have committed to divest. A good site to see the pledges and commitments made can be found here. Numerous organizations such as the United Nations (UN), 350.org, Ceres, Inc., Sierra Club, among many others, are calling on investors to understand the risks of carbon-intensive assets and divest from such investments.

Divesting, in return, creates opportunities to invest in clean energy technologies. Per Bloomberg Energy Finance, investments in clean energy technologies increased by 16% to $310 billion in 2014.  And the EY consulting firm forecasts renewable energy industry will continue to positively perform as technologies become affordable and the appeal of renewable energy increases in emerging markets.

You may ask why should you be bothered by this. If you think this does not apply to you, think again. If you have funds invested through an institution, are part of an employee retirement fund, or are a student or a teacher, chances are that you are part of an investment fund that may be invested in fossil-fuel companies. Next time, do a little research on how your funds are invested. And take a moment to question your financial advisors on how your funds are invested. Keep in mind that most business executives are short-sighted in their decisions. Fossil fuel company executives are no different.  As some say, these companies are heading towards a cliff with a blindfold on. It is up to you to safeguard your long-term financial assets.

Is Iowa Doing Everything It Can?

environmental-protection-683437_640

By Paritosh Kasotia

A version of this article appeared as a guest column in The Des Moines Register on Earth Day, April 22, 2015

Today marks the 45th anniversary of the Earth Day. To commemorate this important milestone, the environmentally conscious lot will probably attend an earth-friendly lecture, switch off our lights and many devices, and talk to our family and friends about the environmental challenges the Earth is facing. This year also marks the 25th year anniversary of the Iowa’s Energy Efficiency Act. Most sustainability professionals preach “think globally, act locally”. On this important day and year, we have to ask ourselves, are we unreservedly doing either of the two parts?

At a Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) event in April, founder Marshall Saunders talked about his early journey to mobilize citizens to take action to minimize the impact of climate change. He recommended actions such as switching light bulbs, improving energy efficiency of homes and buildings, and undertaking other conservation measure and soon realized that these, by all means, are important steps that we all should take but they are just a drop in the bucket to address the colossal issue of climate change.

We have to tackle big issues and the time is now. Less talk, more action. No Excuses, No Games, No political donor favors, No political hackery and No more political football Please!

Iowa has an exceptional opportunity to rethink and redesign its energy sector and establish a statewide comprehensive energy plan that is of the people, by the people, for the people. The timing could not be better. With the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, states have a golden opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and with sheer innovation and leadership, establish new clean energy economic sectors. Iowa has done it in the past with wind and biofuels and with right policies and regulatory structure in place, it can recreate that success story.

The opportunities are boundless. Take for example, solar. Iowa is ranked 16th for technical solar potential in the nation which makes it incredible to grow the solar industry. Progressive utilities such as Farmer’s Electric Cooperative and its General Manager Warren McKenna have shown us the way that it is possible for utilities to adopt a profitable solar model that works. Moreover, Iowans have given up successful careers and founded companies such as Moxie Solar. Mike Howard, a local business owner from Elk Horn is personally invested in the clean energy sector through his ownership of companies that test and calibrate alternative energy devices such as solar PV panels. These Iowans foresee a bright future for the next clean energy economy in Iowa.

Other energy areas such as energy efficiency hold significant promise as well. Iowa’s Energy Bank program was highly successfully in providing low-cost capital for public sector energy efficiency projects. Moreover, the loan program was low risk for Iowa since the loans were given to cities, schools, counties, and universities, which are generally low-risk borrowers. But, as the federal funds dried up and no funds are injected from the state, the program is likely to fall apart, creating a void for our institutions and communities to become leaders in energy efficiency and sustainability.

Options such as solar, financing for energy efficiency, and others like biogas exploration hold significant value to outgrow Iowa’s clean energy economy, reduce emissions, and create a mark for Iowa. We can pass solar tax incentives and promote energy efficiency but this a very piecemeal approach and likely to result in half-baked outcomes. Without a comprehensive energy plan that is vetted through various stakeholders, Iowans will miss an opportunity to innovate and lead in the clean energy economy race that other states are aggressively pursuing.

Iowa has shown that with supportive leadership, progressive policy framework and lenient regulatory structure, it can be the front-runner in the clean energy movement. Iowa was first in the nation to enact the Renewable Portfolio Standard and has the prospect to be the first again.

Keeping the tenets of the Iowa’s Energy Efficiency Act of 1990 in mind of effectively utilizing energy resources and tapping into renewable energy resources, we can collectively catapult to another clean energy movement. Iowans has proven time and time again that when they put their personal will and influence to work, they can shape the future and in this case rise to the occasion and lead the nation in addressing one of the greatest threats facing humanity.

President John F. Kennedy, in his famous speech spoke

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

For most of us, the issue of addressing climate change can be a hard one to grapple with and for sure stirs up enormous passion from all sides but there is no greater satisfaction and pride when we come together and are willing to accept the challenge before us and mobilize our energies, knowledge, skill and the will to overcome it. I am up for it, are you?

Are Millennials Really Not Engaged?

By Paritosh Kasotia

I was at a Citizens Climate Lobby event last night. During Q&A, a lady who described herself as a baby boomer asked a very simple question, how do we engage the millennials? My first reaction was aren’t millennials already engaged? I thought data shows that we deeply care about issues such as climate change, human rights, democracy and other social subjects. We are even willing to give up lucrative careers to address the world’s toughest challenges. But, I don’t blame the boomers. In the room where we had our gathering, except for a handful of us, majority of the folks fell in the 40-70 age group.

That conversation made me wonder if there is simply a perceptive disconnect or the millennials are truly disengaged from the political process when it comes to the issue of climate change. Research strikingly shows not much. A study conducted by Statista in March 2014 observed attitudes about climate change among different age groups. On the question of whether climate change is real and whether humans are to blame for it, 50% of millennials (18-36) answered yes compared to 37% Matures (68+), 43% Gen X (37-48) and 47% Baby Boomers (49-67). On another University of Texas-Austin Energy poll last year, 66% of young adults (18-34) indicated they would prefer to vote for a political candidate who supports cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increase financial incentives for renewable energy compared to 50% of seniors (65+) who indicated they would support such candidates. 56% of the Millennials are also willing to pay more to protect the environment compared to 20% of seniors. The real issue is not that we don’t know about climate change or don’t care enough about it but maybe we are not engaged in ways that would result in meaningful outcomes.

So, what could we, the millennials, do differently to have profound impact? For one, we need to get more active “offline” than “online”. I, similar to many others, “like”, “share”, and “post” number of climate related articles, blogs, and commentary on social media space. We even give our strong opinions on these topics. But, how many of us actually present our views in front of our elected officials, our policymakers and our stakeholders. Powerful lobbying groups, on the other hand, have an army of individuals circling around our elected officials trying their best to get policies passed in their favor. There are indeed millennials who are very active in the public space but those numbers are very few. To create a force, we need more than just a handful.

Secondly, we are certainly vocal about our opinions but those are not necessarily reflected in our voting patterns. Studies have documented multiple times that older voters are likely to vote on a consistent basis than young voters. An NBC article shows that electorate in midterm elections was much older than in presidential elections. In 2012 presidential elections, 25% of voters were age 60 and older while 19% were under 30 years old. In the 2014 midterm elections, 37% of the voters were over the age of 60 and only 12% were under 30 years old. Not being active in midterm elections is a missed opportunity to advance critical topics such as climate change, wage laws, education and so on. Despite having a President who is working towards aggressive climate goals, without a Congress that is able to provide some level of meaningful support, carrying the climate change movement forward will be tough.

In a world filed with special interest groups and campaign finance, it is very easy to give up on the system and disengage. But doing do will only make the system hard to mend.

The millennials and the generations that follow will be hit hardest by the calamities of climate change.  Having an opinion on climate change may not be enough. As Marshall Saunders, founder of Citizens Climate Lobby spoke last night, “I assumed that the important people were making important decisions”. That, of course, is far from reality. And so, it is imperative that everyone, millennials and boomers, rise and engage in what is important.