Krupp, Fred EDF enviro

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.edf.org/people/fred-krupp</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14.25px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp, who has guided EDF for three decades, is a widely recognized leader of the international environmental community. He is an influential voice on climate change, energy, and sustainability issues, and an eloquent champion for harnessing the power of the marketplace to protect our environment. Krupp is co-author with Miriam Horn of the <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">New York Times</em> bestseller<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Earth: The Sequel – The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming</em>.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14.25px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Under Krupp's leadership, EDF has become one of the world's largest and most influential environmental organizations. Since </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1984, when he joined as executive director, EDF's</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> annual operating budget has grown from $3 million to $130 million, full-time staff has increased from 50 to 450, membership has expanded from 40,000 to more than one million, and new offices have opened in Arkansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, Beijing, London and La Paz, Mexico. Among the group's many achievements, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">EDF is the architect of the federal market-based acid rain policy that has <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 77, 145); text-decoration: none;">reduced average U.S. air concentrations of sulfur dioxide by 76% since 1990</a></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. In 2002, </span><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Economist</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> called it "the greatest green success story of the past decade."</span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14.25px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2011, serving on U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu's advisory panel for shale gas production,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Krupp was a powerful voice for strong regulation and enforcement to protect local communities from air and water pollution caused by natural gas development. He has focused national attention on the problem of methane emissions – methane is a potent greenhouse gas – from the oil-and-gas system. Krupp has also led EDF's innovative corporate partnerships with FedEx, KKR, McDonald's, Walmart and others.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14.25px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Krupp was educated at Yale and the University of Michigan Law School, and received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Haverford College. An avid rower, he won a gold medal in the 2006 World Rowing Masters Regatta sponsored by FISA, the international rowing federation. He has been profiled in <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The Wall Street Journal</em>, <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The New Republic</em>, and <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Bloomberg Businessweek</em>, appears frequently in the national media, and was named one of America's Best Leaders by <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">U.S. News and World Report</em>. He lives with his family in Connecticut.</p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bbc</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><b>Climate change: Five things we have learned from the IPCC report</b></div><div>By Matt McGrath</div><div>Environment correspondent</div><div>
</div><div>Published 9 August 2021</div><div>
</div><div>The UN report [6th] on the science of climate change is set to make a huge impact. Our environment correspondent Matt McGrath considers some of the key lessons from it.</div><div>
</div><div>Climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying - and it's down to us</div><div>For those who live in the West, the dangers of warming our planet are no longer something distant, impacting people in faraway places.</div><div>
</div><div>"Climate change is not a problem of the future, it's here and now and affecting every region in the world," said Dr Friederike Otto from the University of Oxford, and one of the many authors on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.</div><div>
</div><div><b>It is the confidence of the assertions that the scientists are now making that is the real strength of this new publication.</b></div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>The phrase "very likely" appears 42 times in the 40-odd pages of the Summary for Policymakers. In scientific terms, that's 90-100% certain that something is real.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Infographic</div><div>"I think there's not one single kind of new surprise that comes out, it's the over-arching solidness that makes this the strongest IPCC report ever made," Prof Arthur Petersen, from University College London (UCL), told BBC News.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Prof Petersen is a former Dutch government representative at the IPCC, and was an observer at the approval session that produced this report.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>"It's understated, it's cool, it's not accusing, it's just bang, bang, bang, one clear point after the other."</b></div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>The clearest of these points is about the responsibility of humanity for climate change.</b></div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>There's no longer any equivocating - it's us.</b></div><div>
</div><div>[More than 100 people were killed in floods that ravaged parts of Europe in July 2021]</div><div>
</div><div><b>The 1.5C temperature limit is on life support</b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">When the last IPCC report on the science of climate change was published in 2013, the idea of 1.5C being the safe global limit for warming was barely considered.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">But in the political negotiations leading up to the Paris climate agreement in 2015, many developing countries and island states pushed for this lower temperature limit, arguing that it was a matter of survival for them.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">A special report on 1.5C in 2018 showed the advantages of staying under the limit were massive compared to a 2C world. Getting there would require carbon emissions to be cut in half, essentially, by 2030 and net zero emissions reached by 2050. Otherwise, the limit would be reached between 2030 and 2052.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">This new report re-affirms this finding. Under all scenarios, the threshold is reached by 2040. If emissions aren't reined in, 1.5C could be gone in around a decade.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Reaching net zero involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible using clean technology, then absorbing any remaining ones by, for example, planting trees.</div><div>
</div><div>While the situation is very serious, it is not a sudden drop into calamity.</div><div>
</div><div>"The 1.5C threshold is an important threshold politically, of course, but from a climatic point of view, it is not a cliff edge - that once we go over 1.5C, suddenly everything will become very catastrophic," explained Dr Amanda Maycock, from the University of Leeds, and one of the authors of the new report.</div><div>
</div><div>"The very lowest emissions scenario that we assess in this report shows that the warming level does stabilise around or below 1.5C later on in the century. If that were the pathway that we would follow, then the the impacts would be significantly avoided."</div><div>
</div><div>Infographic</div><div>
</div><div><b>The bad news: No matter what we do, the seas will continue to rise</b></div><div>In the past, the IPCC has been criticised for being way too conservative when it came to assessing the risk of sea-level rise. A lack of clear research saw previous reports exclude the potential impacts of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.</div><div>
</div><div>Not this time.</div><div>
</div><div>The report shows that under current scenarios, the seas could rise above the likely range, going up to 2m by the end of this century and up to 5m by 2150. While these are unlikely figures, they can't be ruled out under a very high greenhouse gas emissions scenario.</div><div>
</div><div>That's bad enough - but even if we get a handle on emissions and keep temperatures around 1.5C by 2100, the waters will continue to rise long into the future.</div><div>
</div><div>Infographic</div><div>
</div><div>"The gorilla that looms large in the background is these very scary sea-level rise numbers in the long term," said Prof Malte Meinshausen from the University of Melbourne and an IPCC author.</div><div>
</div><div>"In the paper it shows that even with 1.5C warming we're looking at the long-term of two to three metres. And under the highest scenarios, we could be looking at multi-metre sea-level rise by 2150. That is just scary, because it's maybe not at the end of our lifetime, but it is around the corner and it will be committing this planet to a big legacy."</div><div>
</div><div><b>Even if the sea-level rise is relatively mild, it will have knock-on effects that we cannot avoid.</b></div><div>
</div><div>"With gradual sea-level rise, those extreme sea-level events that have occurred in the past, just once per century, will occur more and more frequently in the future," said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the new report.</div><div>
</div><div>"Those that occurred only once per century in the past are expected to occur once or twice per decade by mid-century. The information we provide in this report is extremely important to take into account and prepare for these events."</div><div>
</div><div><b>The good news: Scientists are more certain about what will work</b></div><div>The warnings are clearer and more dire - but there is an important thread of hope running through this report.</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists have long been worried that the climate could be more sensitive to carbon dioxide than they thought.</div><div>
</div><div>They use a phrase - equilibrium climate sensitivity - to capture the range of warming that could occur if CO2 levels were doubled.</div><div>
</div><div>In the last report, in 2013, this ranged from 1.5C to 4.5C, with no best estimate.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>This time round, the range has narrowed and the authors opt for 3C as their most likely figure.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Why is this important?</div><div>
</div><div>"We are now able to constrain that with a good degree of certainty and then we employ that to really make far more accurate predictions," said Prof Piers Forster from the University of Leeds, and an author on the report.</div><div>
</div><div>"So, that way, we know that net zero will really deliver."</div><div>
</div><div>Infographic</div><div>
</div><div><b>Another big surprise in the report is the role of methane, another warming gas.</b></div><div>
</div><div>According to the IPCC, around 0.3C of the 1.1C that the world has already warmed by comes from methane.</div><div>
</div><div>Tackling those emissions, from the oil and gas industry, agriculture and rice cultivation, could be a big win in the short-term.</div><div>
</div><div>"The report quashes any remaining debate about the urgent need to slash methane pollution, especially from sectors such as oil and gas, where the available reductions are fastest and cheapest," said Fred Krupp, from the US Environmental Defense Fund.</div><div>
</div><div>"When it comes to our overheating planet, every fraction of a degree matters - and there is no faster, more achievable way to slow the rate of warming than by cutting human-caused methane emissions."</div><div>
</div><div><b>Politicians will be nervous, the courts will be busy</b></div><div>The timing of this report, coming just a couple of months before the critical COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, means that it will likely be the bedrock of the negotiations. The IPCC has some form here: their previous assessment in 2013 and 2014 paved the way for the Paris climate agreement.</div><div>
</div><div>This new study is far stronger, clearer and more confident about what will happen if politicians don't act.</div><div>
</div><div>If they don't act quickly enough and COP26 ends in an unsatisfactory fudge, then the courts might become more involved.</div><div>
</div><div>Four maps showing how world could get warmer</div><div>
</div><div>In recent years, in Ireland and the Netherlands, environmental campaigners have successfully gone to court to force governments and companies to act on the science of climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>"We're not going to let this report be shelved by further inaction. Instead, we'll be taking it with us to the courts," said Kaisa Kosonen, senior political adviser at Greenpeace Nordic.</div><div>
</div><div>"By strengthening the scientific evidence between human emissions and extreme weather, the IPCC has provided new, powerful means for everyone everywhere to hold the fossil fuel industry and governments directly responsible for the climate emergency.</div><div>
</div><div>"One only needs to look at the recent court victory secured by NGOs against Shell to realise how powerful IPCC science can be."</div><div> no lnx grafix</div><div>
</div><div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p></div></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bigthink: fred k</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The first President Bush had promised the American people in his campaign to be elected that he would solve the acid rain problem.  And so when he got in to office I was invited to the White House by his counsel <b><span style=" color: #ED1C24;">C. Boyden Gray</span></b> and we talked about many subjects. But one thing that the Environmental Defense Fund was encouraged to work on was be a market-based proposal to reduce the omissions of sulfur dioxide, the cause of acid rain.  Here’s how it worked.</font>

<b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Companies were given mandatory targets to reduce their omissions by half, but they could do so any way they wanted -- through energy efficiency, low sulfur fuels, or scrubbers on the smoke stack.  And the kicker was if they managed to get even more than half of that production pollution reduced they could sell that extra increment to somebody else.  So for the first time there was a profit motive to do more than the law required.</font></b>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The beauty of that was it brought down the cost of reducing sulfur so much that in subsequent years we achieved the 50 percent reduction at a small fraction of the cost that was predicted.  We had entrepreneurs inventing new ways to take sulfur out of the smoke stack at very low cost because there was profit in those new ways, but that also emboldened the government to set new goals for sulfur reduction in addition to that first increment of a 50 percent reduction. Then there was a second increment of another 70 percent reduction that has now been implemented.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Theda S different take:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gradually, however,<b> a new strain of market-friendly environmentalism gained

ground</b>.26 </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Not long after he took over, at age 30, as head of the faltering Environmental

Defense Fund, Fred Krupp launched a bold strategy to place less emphasis on lawsuits

and regulatory enactments and instead pursue environmental goals through “strange

bedfellows” coalitions </span>between environmental experts and particular business leaders.27

Krupp made a splash – and sparked acrimonious debates among environmentalists, too –

with a November 20, 1986 Wall Street Journal editorial called “New Environmentalism

Factors in Economic Needs.”28 Not only was the venue well chosen to attract

sympathetic attention from Republicans and business leaders; Krupp’s rhetorical strategy

was equally brilliant. He started by pointing out that “new leaders” were being chosen to

lead old-line environmental organizations – sending the not so subtle, time-honored

message that the old guys should give way to fresh blood – and then announced that it

was time for a new “third stage” in environmentalism. </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This was a clever way to promote

his business-oriented strategy as the inevitable next phase, the coming thing. Pioneering

U.S. environmentalists, Krupp explained, sought to conserve resources and beautiful

enclaves like Yosemite; and the second-phasers took over in the 1960s and 1970s,

looking to punish and regulate polluters. But now it was time for a less “relentlessly

negative” phase that would move beyond “reactive opposition” to industry to work with

business and channel market forces, looking for ways to pursue at the same time

environmental protection and the valid economic goals of furthering “growth, jobs,

taxpayer and stockholder interests.”</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">

Not surprisingly, Krupp’s approach at EDF caught the attention of advisors to

Republican <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">President George Bush, Sr.,</span> who would soon be looking for a way to deliver

on campaign promises to fight the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“acid rain”</span> (caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from

Midwestern power plants) that was harming northeastern lakes and forests. Many in the

broad environmental community looked askance when Krupp later teamed up with

electric company executive Jim Rogers and with the Bush White House to back an

emissions trading system to reduce the pollutants causing acid rain. Before long,

Congress installed this experiment in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, and the

new approach soon proved itself. At a lower than expected cost, acid-rain causing

emissions were ultimately reduced far below initial projections.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">

The acid rain success launched an enticing policy model. Thereafter, emissions

trading under a cap rapidly gained new acceptance among professional environmentalists

– on its way to becoming “the holy grail of environmental policymaking.”29 The 1990

federal approach to acid rain encouraged the design of similar policy proposals to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy. The first applications were in

regional compacts among state governments in the Northeast and Northwest, followed by

adoption of a kind of carbon capping and trading system by the European Union. As

environmental policy scholar Leigh Raymond explains, in the early efforts,

environmentalists focused mostly on the regulatory caps set by governments, but as time

passed they paid more attention to how allowances to emit greenhouse gasses were

handed out to businesses – or sold at auction.30 </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead of giving allowances away based

on industry emission levels in the past, many environmentalists moved toward supporting

auctions, which would in effect encourage efficient market decisions about investing in

new technologies, and also generate government revenues to invest in green energy or

remit to citizens and regions especially hard-hit by rising energy prices. In any event, the

early real-world experiments with cap and trade programs fed back into ongoing

intellectual debates about how best to adapt this approach to the overarching challenge of

reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against global warming. “Cap and trade”

became the favored approach for moderate environmentalists and the apparent key to

forging alliances with some business leaders to push legislation that could gain

Republican as well as Democratic votes in Congress. </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Business was presumed to have

great sway with Republicans, so winning over some corporate chieftains and business

sectors was assumed – simply assumed – to be the magic key to wooing Republican votes

in Congress. The ideal combination of wise policy and effective politics seemed at hand!

Indeed, as ideas moved toward actual legislation, the momentum behind marketaccommodating

approaches to setting a carbon cap for the U.S. economy was faster from

2000 to 2009 than any movement toward comprehensive health reform. To be sure,

regulated and expanded health insurance was enacted in Governor Romney’s

Massachusetts in 2006, but despite a certain amount of cheerleading, Romney’s policy

model did not inspire actual legislation in any additional states. With the Republican

Party in charge in Washington DC, nothing advanced on the national health reform front.

Democratic politicians, constituencies, and experts could only lay in wait and fine tune

their plans. Meanwhile, key environmentalists kept reaching out to business and

moderate Republicans, and managed to persuade teams of Senators to introduce cap and

trade styled bills and bring them to vote.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">

With these warm-up steps, cap and trade proponents believed they were inching

toward eventual legislative victory, and certainly looked to be moving closer than health

reform supporters during the 2000s.

 </font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">----

 </font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate war</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">True believers --</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Krupp EDF</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">founded by sci, but used litigation (sue the bastards) other groups like SClub also set up legal shops</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Graff hired Roe (gr gpa founded what became pg&E) 60  '79 won suit vs pg&e (used new PC), cancelled coal plant</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dudek, Goffman</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gramsci: pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will = revo 78</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Only Jim Rogers [Duke] went for acid rain</span> PSI energy, big success, cheaper than predicted , b1 upped goal p 80</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EDF ctr newt on weaken esa</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CB Gray read krupp, drove methanol car, helped get lead out of gas</font></p>