Browsing by Author "Pickle, Amy"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    20 Years of Government Responses to the Global Plastic Pollution Problem: The Plastics Policy Inventory
    (2020-05-15) Virdin, John; Karasik, Rachel; Vegh, Tibor; Pickle, Amy; Diana, Zoie; Rittschof, Daniel; Bering, Janet; Caldas, Juan
    Plastic pollution in the ocean is a global problem that requires cooperation from a wide range of groups (e.g., governments, producers, consumers, researchers, civil society). This study aims to synthesize the policy response of governments to the global plastic pollution problem, as a basis for more rigorous monitoring of progress (as called for in Resolution 4/6 of the 2019 United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) meeting) and to inform future public policies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Annual Trends in Plastics Policy: A Brief
    (2022-02-23) Karasik, Rachel; Bering, Janet; Griffin, Madison; Diana, Zoie; Laspada, Christian; Schachter, Jonathan; Wang, Yifan; Pickle, Amy; Virdin, John
    In 2020, the Plastics Policy Inventory and accompanying report, 20 Years of Government Responses to the Global Plastic Pollution Problem, were published, providing a baseline for the trends in government responses to the plastic pollution problem, as well as highlighting some gaps. Since that time, momentum has grown toward negotiation of an international agreement as a collective response to the problem, even as governments and resources have been strained by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. This first brief builds upon the 2020 report and baseline by adding new data on national policy responses to plastic pollution from 2020 and 2021. Assessment of the more up-to-date policy inventory suggests that the twenty-year trend of an increase in the number of national policies introduced to reduce plastic pollution has stalled. While additional data on national policies may subsequently become available to revise these estimates, if confirmed they would suggest a pause in government responses to the problem, coinciding with the pandemic (though we cannot show causality). Our goal is for this brief to be the first in a regular series of annual updates on the trends in government responses to the global plastic pollution problem.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Crafting Climate Solutions in Coal Country: Lessons from the Work of the Energy Communities Interagency Working Group (IWG) in Wyoming
    (2024-05-03) Hitchcock, Ian
    Current federal efforts to support coal dependent “energy communities” will be insufficient to ensure their well-being through clean energy transition. Energy Community incentives and frameworks that treat coal communities as a monolith fail to account for distinct local needs between coal communities in different regions. The story of the coal producing state of Wyoming’s engagement with federal funding opportunities designed to support coal communities in transition demonstrates the shortcomings of current federal policy frameworks to support coal communities. While there has been alignment between Wyoming and federal policy goals around clean energy transition with support for carbon capture, utilization, and storage demonstration projects (CCUS), the state has largely failed to receive funding from competitive grant programs aimed at supporting diversified economic development within coal communities, even though Wyoming is the highest producing coal area in the country. All that said, the work of the Energy Communities Interagency Working Group and their pilot Rapid Response Team (RRT)in Wyoming offers lessons that could be applied to federal programs aiming to support a just transition for coal communities in the US. The successes of the RRT demonstrate how a focus on place-based community engagement, emphasis on relationship building and building on the ground capacity to engage with federal programs, and flexibility in program design can create the conditions that lead to policy progress on climate even in unlikely places like Wyoming communities whose economies, culture, and politics have been dominated by fossil fuels for decades.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    North Carolina Electricity Planning
    (2016-10-11) Jowers, Kay; Pickle, Amy
    The electricity system is facing new pressures from a changing generation mix, new technologies, consumer demand, and evolving utility business models. Planning for these changes will require participants in the process—utilities, regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders—not only to engage with these coming shifts but also to think critically and collectively about ways to address them. In North Carolina, two regulatory bodies share responsibilities for electricity planning: the North Carolina Energy Policy Council (EPC) and the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC). The EPC is responsible for setting the state energy plan; the NCUC approves utility-developed integrated resource plans that forecast future electricity demand and options for meeting it. These two planning processes have different stakeholder-engagement opportunities, forecasting requirements, and outcomes. Robust electricity planning that is based on a comprehensive and coordinated policy framework across agencies and that creates strong stakeholder alignment has multiple benefits, including increased regulatory certainty, diverse stakeholder engagement in a common goal, and clear understanding among stakeholders and decision makers of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution options. North Carolina has a range of options to institute comprehensive electricity planning that is aligned with effective planning principles and that builds on its past successes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Pathways to Net-Zero for the US Energy Transition
    (2022-11-04) Ewing, John; Ross, Martin; Pickle, Amy; Stout, Robert; Murray, Brian
    What will it take to achieve a net-zero carbon emissions footprint for the US economy by 2050? This report from Energy Pathways USA helps strengthen the evidence base on what will be required for a robust US energy transition and elucidates key barriers and opportunities for reaching net-zero goals. The authors examine past and present emissions trends and highlight common threads across recent quantitative analyses of potential net-zero trajectories, identifying sectors and shifts that could significantly boost decarbonization. Transforming the electricity grid—with clean energy production, increased high-voltage transmission, and grid modernization for resilience and reliability—is critical to all of these projections. Electrifying transportation and buildings, pursuing hydrogen as a fuel source, and expanding carbon management solutions are also commonly identified as significant ways to spur decarbonization. The authors also offer an overview of the federal and state decarbonization policy landscape—including analysis of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act passed into law in 2022. “For the US to reach its climate goals, these federal government investments will need to galvanize a multiplicative effect of private and subnational investments—along with construction of infrastructure and deployment of new technology—at an unprecedented scope, scale, and pace,” the authors note. The report closes with a selection of challenges and opportunities for the US net-zero project that require further attention: - Accelerated deployment of clean electricity and the electrification of vehicles - Accelerated energy efficiency and the electrification of buildings - Development and deployment of advanced energy technologies, including hydrogen; carbon capture, utilization, and storage; direct air capture; zero-carbon liquid fuels; and advanced nuclear and geothermal energy sources - Reduced industrial-sector emissions through electrification, efficiency upgrades, the deployment of advanced energy technologies, and low- or zero-carbon fuels - Reductions in methane emissions in oil and gas exploration and development - Enhanced conservation and sequestration in forest and agricultural lands - Accelerated state and regional coordination and efforts - Ensured equitability for the energy transition - Increased domestic supply chain sourcing to support all aspects of the transition The report concludes by outlining future areas of work for Energy Pathways USA. This Duke-based endeavor brings together corporate partners and thought leaders across multiple key industries to accelerate net-zero progress in the US.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    State of the Coast: A Review of Coastal Management Policies for Six States
    (2023-01-17) Karasik, Rachel; Pickle, Amy; O’Shea, Maggie; Reilly, Kelly; Bruce, Molly; Earnhardt, Rachel; Ahmed, Iqra
    This analysis of coastal habitat policy in six US states—California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington—aims to identify promising policy approaches for improved protection and restoration of oyster reefs, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass.   Coastal habitats provide critical environmental, economic, and recreational services valued at billions of dollars in the United States alone. However, the quantity and quality of most coastal habitats have been under decline for centuries due to a variety of threats. Coordinated policy responses across levels of government are required for protection and restoration of coastal habitats because they do not have discrete jurisdictional boundaries and are often harmed by distant anthropogenic activities.   The analysis finds that state-level management is principally guided by federal coastal protection and management statutes, namely the Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. State and federal policies are rarely habitat-specific and do not comprehensively address threats, which can result in a fragmented policy landscape that struggles to meet habitat protection and restoration goals. With limited long-term monitoring data and few effectiveness studies, our ability to understand which policy levers work and the extent to which they can be replicated in other states is limited.   A successful path forward may be found through local initiatives tailored and designed for their local context that have effectively restored degraded habitats and employed innovative regulatory mechanisms intended to streamline the permitting process for restoration. Dedicated funding for sustained, long-term monitoring to best understand the effects and outcomes of habitat protection and restoration policy efforts will also be critical to identify enabling conditions and replicate effective measures in similar contexts.   The Pew Charitable Trusts supported the development of this report. Pew is not responsible for any inaccuracies and does not necessarily endorse the findings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Use of Preservation in North Carolina Wetland and Stream Mitigation
    (2017-03-27) Young, Ben; Olander, Lydia; Pickle, Amy
    To better protect the nation’s wetlands and streams, the Clean Water Act allows use of compensatory mitigation to replace the benefits of lost wetlands and streams. This study summarizes North Carolina’s use of preservation for compensatory mitigation by private mitigation banks and a state-operated in-lieu fee (ILF) program. Within private mitigation banks, preservation activities have generated 5.6% of wetland credits and 9.1% of stream credits since 2008. Within the state in-lieu fee program run by the Division of Mitigation Services, 45.0% of wetland credits and 6.2% of stream credits have resulted from preservation. However, a majority of the wetland credits generated by preservation in the ILF program came from one site described as unusually large by program staff. Since 2008, North Carolina’s ILF program and mitigation banks have continued to use preservation at relatively low rates for both wetland and stream mitigation. Mitigation providers have stated that the clarity of the state’s preservation policy makes it easier for preservation to be included in projects in North Carolina than in projects in some other states. Notably, between 2012 and 2015, no wetland preservation was used for mitigation by the ILF program.