by Suzanne Tegen (CSTPR Visiting Scholar) and Alison Anson
Center for the New Energy Economy, Colorado State University

Photos above: A community once focused on coal is now a regional hub for recreational motorcycling. Credit: Back of the Dragon.

Coal plants are closing across the United States. The IEEFA expects 44 coal units will close in 2018, and 73 additional units are already scheduled to close by 2024. According to EIA reports, coal production peaked in 2008, and consumption in 2018 will drop below 1979’s record low and continue to decline. Electricity from coal now has a higher levelized cost of energy than natural gas combined cycle, wind, and utility-scale solar. Because of this, even with the EPA’s recent rollback of emissions regulations, utilities are unlikely to invest in new coal. Recent analyses[1]^,[2] reveal that continuing to operate some existing coal plants is now uneconomical, even without including social and environmental costs.

This map of the 2016 fleet of operating units is color coded to show announced retirements and conversions and units that are uneconomic compared to existing NGCC units. The bar graph show the total number of units by state. Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists 2017: A Dwindling Role for Coal.

Coal mining is an industry around which whole communities are built. As coal becomes increasingly uneconomical, and as coal mines and plants close down, miners, power plant employees, and their communities must find ways to transition.[3] The term “just transition” has been used to describe an equitable shift for coal workers and communities.[4]^,[5]

According to a study funded by the European Climate Foundation, “there is no recipe for implementing a just transition because mono-industrial regions are very different from each other and are defined by unique social, political, economic or cultural factors.”

Policy solutions for coal transitions typically focus on workers or utilities’ return on investments. Coal communities can be mono-industrial, where industry is associated with identity and attachment to place. Providing alternative jobs and workforce development funding may not be sufficient to help the entire community deal with the shift away from a coal-based identity and livelihood.

Those responsible for successful transitions include policy-makers (including regulators), utilities (including plant owners), and community stakeholders (including workers). There are several current examples of successful coal community transitions. In Colstrip, Montana, policy-makers and others are providing new jobs in reclamation and clean-up. In Pueblo, Colorado, Xcel Energy will offer workers alternative jobs; and the community of Tazewell West Virginia has shifted focus from coal to tourism and natural resources.[6]

The solutions associated with transitioning coal communities should include a discussion of local justice and equity. Understanding and replicating successful transitions will require collaborative evaluation of the context-specific strategies developed by policy-makers, utilities, and communities. Socio-economic, cultural, and contextual perspectives will be integral to implementing these solutions.

[1] See RMI’s “Managing the Coal Capital Transition” for fiscal and capital impacts.
[2] The Carbon Tracker Initiative found that “42% of global coal capacity is already unprofitable.”
[3] Due to technological advances and automation, occupations such as farming and transportation may also require transitional solutions.
[4] Early use of the term “just transition” is attributed to Tony Mazzocchi around the late 1970s.
[5] Alexandru Mustata, 2017.
[6] See also www.justtransitionfund.org

by David Oonk, PhD Candidate
ATLAS Institute and Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado Boulder

The research that I presented provided some background and highlighted academic climate scientists varying concerns and perspectives on advocacy. The majority of conversations at my poster were with geo-scientists eager to learn more about how and when they should engage in advocacy for their science and its policy implications. One individual expressed optimism that their colleagues’ views on advocacy are shifting and their community is now more engaged and involved. Another individual said that the 2016 election really changed their view on scientists advocating and motivated them to get involved.

The work that I presented and the conversations I had at the poster session aligned with larger general impressions I had at the 2018 AGU Meeting. I found that many of the presentations and posters engaged deeply with the societal relevance and policy implications of their work. Being in DC, many of the sessions were centered on the science policy nexus and how geo-scientist can get involved. These were just examples of a undercurrent at the conference, one where scientists were critically questioning their role in decision-making and policy-making as they faced a horizon where they must engage directly in solving society’s most pressing problems.

by Cassandra Brooks
CSTPR Faculty Affiliate, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder

Last month French President Emmanuel Macron convened the first edition of the Paris Peace Forum, an event targeted at improving global governance writ large. This bold initiative involved 65 Heads of State and participants from all over the world. The occasion, which took place between November 11-13, 2018, marked the 100^th anniversary of the end of World War I and provided a new platform as a “global meet-up” to share innovative ideas in overcoming the challenges of our era: peace and security, environment, development, new technologies and more-inclusive economy. For me and my colleagues with the Antarctica2020 project, it was an appropriate moment to highlight the opportunity and risk of Antarctica – a place of amazing historic diplomacy, but also of current dramatic threat from a changing climate.

Among the presentations of ambitious solutions, ending counterterrorism, promoting digital peace, protecting global wild cats, initiating governance for the moon – among many others, we were presenting a vision of continued diplomacy and protection for Antarctica.

At the height of the Cold War, states had Antarctica divided up like a pie. The United States and USSR were both interested in using this southern uninhabited continent for military purposes. The world watched on in fear as rumors circulated that nuclear war would be raged from the Antarctic. Incredibly, instead of using Antarctica to wage war, a peace treaty was signed – The Antarctic Treaty – which came into force in 1961. It banned all nuclear and military activity and latter amendments banned mining and set aside the entire continent as “a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.” For more than 50 years, the Antarctic has been a beacon of hope, and example of functioning multilateralism serving as a model for a vast global commons dedicated to peace and science.

However, the Antarctic is undergoing rapid environmental changes and management has failed to keep pace. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica, in particular, did not receive the same protection as the continent, so in addition to suffering the effects of climate change. fishing pressure is increasing with vessels encroaching upon penguin and whale foraging grounds. Amongst glacier collapse and sea ice changes that cause reverberations throughout the food web, Antarctic species are struggling to adapt. However, Antartica2020 is one project supporting the designation of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean to protect biodiversity and build the resilience of the marine environment to the effects climate change.

Cassandra Brooks Presenting at the Paris Peace Forum for the panel “Antarctica: Poster-child or sick man of multilateralism?” (photo credit: Mike Walker).

I went to Paris with a team from the project to make the case for Antarctica to continue being a place of diplomacy, peace, science and environmental protection. I talked about the incredible role that protected areas can play in enhancing resilience and for how marine protected areas themselves can be a tool for diplomacy. I saw in 2016 when, despite incredible geopolitical tension, Russia and the USA – along with the other states involved in the governance of the Southern Ocean – agreed to designate the world’s largest marine protected area in the Ross Sea. This southern continent has always been a place where, despite diplomatic tensions on other parts of the world, we can find common ground.

As a testament to the importance of protecting the Antarctic marine global commons, Antarctica2020 was one of 10 projects selected from the 120 (from 850 applicants) for further support. I was immensely proud to participate in this inspiring inaugural event that will no doubt reverberate for years to come with its impacts on global governance.