The importance of funding the Working Families Tax Rebate (WFTR), a Washington state version of the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), should not be overlooked. As one of the many new investments for communities with lower incomes included in Governor Inslee’s proposals to reduce carbon pollution, the benefits of the WFTR would be widespread throughout Washington state, but would be most pronounced in rural communities and communities of color (see map below).
Going forward, it is critical that policymakers ensure all Washingtonians are able to thrive in the low-carbon economy of the future. Without investments like the WFTR, people with lower incomes will continue to shoulder growing economic and health costs associated with climate change. And, they be will not be able to afford the clean energy infrastructure needed to reduce their consumption of costly, carbon-intensive gasoline and electricity sources.
There is a growing toolbox of measures cities can take to combat climate change. One of these tools, divestment from fossil fuels, is ethical, viable, and a moral imperative. Divestment is strengthened when the funds divested are redirected to climate-positive projects. Divestment and re-investment help reduce the carbon risks of cities. Taking inventory of what funds the city has control over and identifying which ones are invested
in fossil fuel industries is the first step and an easy hurdle. There are a couple ways fund managers and cities can re-invest these funds to help balance out their portfolios.
Climate change represents the single greatest long-term threat to our cities and citizens. The health, wealth, infrastructure and ability to maintain basic services of cities will increasingly be degraded as our planet warms and our weather worsens. Yet local governments are currently sharing in the profits made by the fossil fuel industry – investing in the very companies that are directly responsible for this threat.
According to current scientific predictions, we can only put 500 gigatons more of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and still keep global temperature rise below 2°C, a goal that the United States and nearly every other country on Earth has agreed to meet. Here’s the terrifying part: the fossil fuel industry has 2795 gigatons of CO2 in their coal, oil and gas reserves, five times more than we can burn and stay under the 2 degree threshold.1 If we’re going to see serious progress on slowing climate change, we’re going to have to keep that carbon in the ground, and that means addressing the fossil fuel industry head-on.
Divestment, a strategy pioneered in this country during the antiapartheid movement, is a powerful tool that we can use in this fight. The logic of divestment is simple: We shouldn’t be funding our retirement by investing in companies whose operations ensure we won’t have a safe planet to retire on. It’s not worth greening your city for the next generation, if you’re also investing millions in companies that are threatening that generation’s future. Local governments have the opportunity to be leaders in combatting this contradiction by divesting their funds – general, retirement, utility, pension, etc. – from fossil fuel companies.
This report presents recommendations on potential high impact philanthropic investments to advance deep building energy efficiency improvements at scale within the healthcare sector. It is one of five reports being developed for a coalition of six philanthropies that are collaborating to see what they – and others – might do to rapidly increase and scale the energy efficiency retrofit market for buildings in the United States. These philanthropies are the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Energy Foundation, Kresge Foundation, Living Cities, MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. The other sectors for which market development strategies are being developed include: commercial office, commercial retail, single-family residential, and multifamily residential.
In the summer of 2012, expert panels of 10-12 individuals were convened for each of these sub-segments. These panels developed recommendations on priority approaches and research needs for each sector. The recommendations in this and the other segment reports build upon these initial ideas.
The process used to develop these recommendations included background research on energy efficiency strategies for the healthcare sector and interviews with 33 participants in the sector, representing healthcare systems, NGOs, trade associations, service providers and utilities.1 The interviews solicited feedback on the recommendations from the expert panel as well as other ideas the interviewees had on how to advance this
market.