Week 2 - Assignment: Describe the Senior Leadership Team's Role in Managing the Agency's Mission and Week 3 - Assignment: Examine Senior Leadership's Actions Toward Improving Organizational Efficiency

Business Leadership in Global Climate Change Responses

In the 2015 Paris Climate Change

Agreement, 195 countries com-

mitted to reducing greenhouse

gas emissions in recognition of

the scientific consensus on the

consequences of climate change,

includingsubstantialpublichealth

burdens. In June 2017, however,

US president Donald Trump an-

nounced that the United States

would not implement the Paris

Agreement.

We highlight the business

community’sbackingforclimate

change action in the United

States. Just as the US federal

government is backing away

from its Paris commitments,

many corporate executives are

recognizing the need to address

the greenhouse gas emissions

of their companies and the busi-

ness logic of strong environ-

mental, social, and governance

practices more generally.

We conclude that climate

change could emerge as an issue

on which the business and public

health communities might align

and provide leadership. (Am J

Public Health. 2018;108:S80–S84.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304336)

Daniel C. Esty, JD, MA, and Michelle L. Bell, PhD

Environmental problemsare sometimes hard to de- tect until they reach a critical threshold and emerge as public health or ecological threats. When the underlying causes are spread widely over space or time or a solution requires significant cost or behavioral change, cap- turing public focus can be even more challenging. If action re- quires overcoming entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo, then the political mobilization necessary to pro- duce collective action will be particularly difficult.1 Climate change presents an extreme case on all counts. After decades of inaction, however, 195 nations committed in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that have been building up in the atmosphere for centuries.

However, President Trump announced on June 1, 2017, that the US government intends to leave the Paris Agreement and retreat from its commitment to a clean energy future. We reviewed scientific evidence for climate change action, and we highlight the present commit- ment to action, which spans the developing and developed worlds and includes cities, states and provinces, and companies. Indeed, the leadership of mayors, governors, and corporate exec- utives has added bottom-up momentum. Perhaps most no- table is the breadth of support in the business community for en- vironmental protection in gen- eral and climate change initiatives

in particular that have taken place despite the passive disregard and active denial of climate change by some in the business community. We conclude that a growing numberofprivatecompanies,along with cities, states, universities, and other nongovernmental organiza- tions, are pushing back against the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Addressing the public health crisis of climate change requires efforts from multiple communi- ties, so commitment from the business sector is of utmost im- portance. Thus, the better the field of public health understands business’s positions on climate change and vice versa, the better climate change can be addressed and the related public health crisis avoided or mitigated. We ex- plore climate change actions by the corporate world, especially in light of changes in the US federal leadership’s position on the issue.

CLARIFYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Thousands of scientists from across the world partici- pated in the UN-chartered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2 The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent Fifth Assessment Report3 makes clear that greenhouse gas emissions threaten to produce not just overall warming but sea level rise, changed range and distribution of disease vectors, and changed rainfall patterns, leading to more droughts, wild fires, and floods. While acknowledging that some scientific uncertainties remain in climate science, an overwhelming scientific con- sensus has been reached on the seriousness of the problem.4

THE 2015 PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT

Climate change has been recognized since the early 1980s.5

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 154 presidents and prime ministers signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But little was done by many such nations in the ensuing 2 decades. Globally, emissions and accumu- lation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continued to rise.6,7

One reason the 1992 con- vention delivered little mitigation

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Daniel C. Esty is with the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. Michelle L. Bell is with the Yale School of Forestry and Envi- ronmental Studies.

Correspondence should be sent to Michelle Bell, Yale University, 195 Prospect St, New Haven, CT 06511 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link.

This article was accepted January 14, 2018. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304336

S80 Editorial Peer Reviewed Esty and Bell AJPH Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2

AJPH PERSPECTIVES

was the lack of consensus on who should do what (“burden shar- ing,” in diplomatic language) beyond a common commitment to the broad principle of “com- mon but differentiated respon- sibility.”8 The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change split the world into a small group of Annex 1 countries (roughly the 40 most developed nations at that time), which agreed to control emissions, and a long list of non–Annex 1 countries, which made no substantive commitment to emissions control.

The 2015 Paris Agreement changed this dynamic by em- phasizing common responsibility and calling on signatories to de- velop climate change action plans under the banner of “nationally determined contributions” to control greenhouse gas emis- sions.8 When negotiations closed, 188 nations issued na- tionally determined contribu- tions, putting virtually every country in the world on the climate change playing field.

A second breakthrough in the Paris Agreement was the shift from national governments as the primary actors to broader en- gagement, calling on cities, states and provinces, citizens, and companies to advance efforts on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Indeed, hundreds of mayors, governors, premiers, and corporate leaders made their own commitments to action in Paris.6

Negotiators acknowledged that climate change has many facets and requires, as former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon liked to say, “all hands on deck.”9

BUSINESS BACKS ACTION

The business community’s broad embrace of the 2015 Paris

call for corporate action to reduce emissions reflects another point of learning over previous de- cades. At the 1992 UN Frame- work Convention on Climate Change, most business leaders were skeptical about climate change and many remained de- fensive about environmental re- quirements more generally.10

Today, although opposition re- mains, many business leaders recognize the value of environ- mental protection.11,12 A grow- ing number of business leaders have built energy, environmen- tal, and sustainability elements into their day-to-day corporate strategy.13 Some chief executive officers (CEOs) have been vocal for years about opportunities to “do good and do well” simulta- neously. Paul Polman of Uni- lever, for example, developed the Sustainable Living Plan, which puts environmental progress on the household and societal levels at the center of his business growth strategy and charges all the company’s 170 000 world- wide employees to fold sus- tainability into their work.14

Similarly, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, in his 2006 Master Plan, put “provide zero emission electric power generation op- tions” alongside “build sports car” as core elements of Tesla’s mission.15

The range of corporate leaders calling for climate change action is now much broader. TheWorld Economic Forum organized an open letter in 2015, before the Paris Agreement, from nearly 100 CEOs to world leaders affirming “that the private sector has a responsibility to engage actively in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to help the world move to a low- carbon, climate-resilient econ- omy.”16 In urging President Trump to stay in the Paris Agree- ment, Jeff Immelt, CEO of

General Electric, recently de- clared that “climate change is real” and that actions to reduce emissions make business as well as environmental sense.17 More than 1000 companies joined the World Bank’s 2015 call for a carbon charge.18 Hundreds of companies joined the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, a group of governments and businesses launched in 2014 at the UN Climate Summit and led by the World Bank, which aims to grow the application of carbon pricing to lower emissions of greenhouse gases, while keeping economic advantages.19 Hun- dreds of US companies publicly announced support for the Paris Agreement and commitments to reduce their emissions.20

Many corporate leaders now recognize that companies cannot thrive in societies with ecological and public health problems of the sort that climate change threa- tens to cause.21 More notably, a growing number of executives recognize that a strategic focus on environmental issues can pay off in the marketplace.22 Although compliance with environmental regulations can be costly for some industries, ignoring sustainability challenges exposes companies to serious risks, including changed customer expectations and product displacement, non- governmental organization pro- tests or boycotts, unfavorable media exposure, and govern- mental pushback, including new regulatory obligations.23 How- ever, environmental or sustain- able strategies can deliver cost savings. Companies investing in energy efficiency—for example, LED lighting, updated equip- ment, and more efficient logistics—often achieve cost re- ductions.13 Likewise, businesses that reduce waste and improve production practices to minimize scrap and increase resource

productivity cut costs and strengthen competitive position.24

More dramatically, many companies have found ways to drive growth through environ- mental initiatives.25 Businesses that can offer products or services that solve customers’ energy or environmental challenges can see competitive positions strengthen as these market offerings deliver added value.26 A recent Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology and Bonston Consulting Group study found that half of all companies they surveyed re- ported changing their business models to take advantage of sustainability opportunities.27

Mondelez International (for- merly Kraft Foods), for example, discovered that integrating sus- tainability throughout its value chain opened new markets, ex- panded its consumer base, and increased profitability. Similarly, General Electric’s position in the jet engine marketplace was strengthened by success in in- creasing its engines’ fuel effi- ciency. The company’s strategic focus on “ecomagination” has spurred sustainability-oriented innovation across many of General Electric’s business lines.28 Our research shows an ever-growing number of com- panies reporting substantial sustainability-driven revenues and rising profits, with 9 com- panies reporting more than $1 billion in profit from sustainable products or services.29

Beyond the bottom line, a significant number of business leaders today recognize that en- vironmental leadership often translates into enhanced brand awareness and other elements of intangible value. When Coca- Cola’s CEO James Quincey makes sustainability a corpo- rate value and urges President Trump not to abandon the Paris

AJPH PERSPECTIVES

Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2 AJPH Esty and Bell Peer Reviewed Editorial S81

Agreement, he is not just ac- knowledging his company’s de- pendence on water. He is also recognizing that Coca-Cola has a market capitalization that re- flects more than $80 billion in intangible value30 that might be threatened if the consuming public concludes that the com- pany was acting in an environ- mentally irresponsible manner. On the other hand, a number of companies have discovered that failing to embrace sustainability as a core value can result in damaged reputations and other business challenges.31 BP and Volkswa- gen are notable recent cases of environment-driven brand damage that translated into bil- lions of dollars of lost market capitalization.32,33

Robust corporate environ- mental efforts have also been demonstrated to enhance cus- tomer loyalty and deepen em- ployee engagement (particularly of today’s prized knowledge workers).34 Investors are increasingly asking about environmental, social, and governance practices of compa- nieswitha special worry aboutthe future prospects of any business that has significant carbon expo- sure or other evidence of envi- ronmental practices that could become liabilities.35

PROTECTING THE PAST VS BUILDING THE FUTURE

Despite the efforts we have described, the business sector does not uniformly support cli- mate change mitigation, and some companies openly support a rollback of America’s climate change commitments. They have brought significant political pressure through their campaign contributions and lobbying

efforts.36 Coal companies, in particular, have celebrated the prospect of abandoning the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, the structure of state-by-state greenhouse gas emission targets for the utility sector that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) de- veloped to induce a shift toward cleaner fuels and greater energy efficiency.37 In fact, a recent study of climate change com- munications from ExxonMobil concluded that the company misled the public regarding cli- mate change science.38 Still, the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the 2015 Paris Agreement and its plan to walk away from the Clean Power Plan seem unlikely to reverse the de- cline of coal as a source of US electricity for several reasons.

First, market economics con- tinue to steer utilities away from coal-fired generation and toward natural gas and to emphasize solar and wind power.39,40 Simply put, those building power plants, which have decades-long life- times, do not see coal as a good bet over a 40- or 50-year time- frame.41,42 Second, the Clean Power Plan cannot be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. US administrative law allows the EPA to revise its rules only after going through a new regulatory process, including building a sci- entific record that supports in- action or reduced emphasis on climate change.43,44 Third, if the EPA introduces much weaker emissions controls, it will almost certainly be challenged in court, especially if it withdraws the so-called endangerment finding that requires emissions controls undertheUSCleanAirActforany air pollutant, including greenhouse gas emissions found to “endanger public health and public welfare.”

Ultimately, any EPA effort to construct an administrative

record that purports to suggest that greenhouse gas emissions are not a public health threat in support of weaker regulations would seem likely to run afoul of the fundamental administrative law standard of review: that the EPA not act in a “arbitrary and capricious” manner.45 Finally, much of the disincentive for burning coal comes from the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, not climate change regulations.46

LONG-TERM GAINS AT SHORT-TERM COSTS

Environmental protection, like many public health issues, often involves changing behavior and short-term investments for long-term benefits. Around the world, including in the United States, much (but not all) of the public has come to recognize the threat of climate change.47 Even without leadership from Wash- ington, governors and mayors in 34 states have rolled out climate change action plans.48 Climate change action plans are only part of broader state-level commit- ments to a transformed energy future. California, Florida, and 15 other states have strengthened their renewable portfolio stan- dards, developed new incentives for renewable energy deploy- ment, or refined their carbon reduction programs.49 Con- necticut, New York, and a growing number of other states have launched green banks to finance broader deployment of renewable power and expanded energy efficiency.50

In the aftermath of Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement, California, New York, and Washington State announced the formation of the US Climate Alliance, a coalition

of states that will work to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement.51 Hundreds of mayors, university presidents, and corporate leaders are work- ing on a proposal to present to the United Nations that would allow them to submit their climate targets and emissions reductions for inclusion alongside countries in the Paris Agreement.52

In the private sector, some companies are investing in the energy efficiency and renewable power breakthroughs required to deliver a clean energy future. Google, Apple, Facebook, and more than 90 other companies around the world, for example, have committed to using 100% renewable energy in all of their operations.53 Meanwhile, com- panies increasingly recognize the opportunity energy efficiency initiatives provide to reduce op- erational costs and improve their carbon footprints.54 A growing number of companies are estab- lishing internal greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, with 85% of companies recently sur- veyed by the Carbon Disclosure Project reporting that they have established emissions targets.55

In brief, the 2015 Paris Agreement has galvanized a push for real change in the energy foundations of the global econ- omy. The expectation that the world will now move on to a more sustainable energy path has an important dimension that is self-fulfilling as business leaders lock in assumptions about their future energy options and cost expectations.

Ironically, although the United States may experience more hurricanes and suffer damage to farming and forests as well as other climate change consequences in the next several decades, much of the early and most severe impacts will be in the developing world.56 Island

AJPH PERSPECTIVES

S82 Editorial Peer Reviewed Esty and Bell AJPH Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2

nations and other low-lying countries, such as Bangladesh, are likely to be particularly hard hit.57

The prospect of more com- mand and control regulations that limit individual and corpo- rate choices draws particular ire. But fear of more big government controls will lead to a debate over policy instruments, not objection to action on climate change generally. Clearly, US politics has unique elements that provide some explanation for its anoma- lous position in the global con- versation about climate change. Notably, the fossil fuel industry pushes back against climate change science more aggressively in the United States than in other parts of the world.

With the future health and welfare of the United States and the rest of the world at stake, the fact that an important swath of US political leadership evinces a lack of concern about climate change and unwillingness to act must be seen as a public health communications problem as well. Public health experts hel- ped change American under- standing and attitudes (and thus the direction of US politics) with regard to smoking, seatbelts, and a number of other issues. That same degree of effort to increase awareness may now be needed for climate change.

A changing climate is antici- pated to bring substantial health burdens with increases in many environmental exposures that harm health, including wildfires, droughts, air pollution, and disease-bearing vectors, among others, as well as the potential for harmed health through conflict and environmental refugees from dwindling resources. The health effects of climate change are numerous and an area of active research. The 2017 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change tracks progress

on health and climate change on the basis of 40 indicators.58 To list just a few, health impacts in- cluded weather-related disasters, food security and food-borne diseases, infectious disease, and air pollution. In fact, a survey of members of the American Tho- racic Society from 68 countries indicated that most had already observed adverse health out- comes of climate change in their patients.59 The 2015 Paris Agreement highlighted the health consequences of climate change as a driving reason to control greenhouse gas emis- sions.60 The agreement also noted the potential for coimpacts (often called cobenefits): the short-term improvements in air quality and subsequently in health from policies designed to lower greenhouse gas emissions that also lower levels of harmful air pollutants.

The consensus for climate change science is broad and deep across the rest of the world. The US public broadly supports cli- mate change mitigation efforts. But US opposition to action, although limited, remains strong. Environmental groups have been beating the climate change drum for years. Much of the business world has come to regard climate change action as a good, not a bad, thing. In vast numbers, corporate leaders support green- house gas emission controls and are ready for the shift to a clean energy future, and in the future, we will see if such support translates into action. But these voices are not carrying the day politically in the United States. Additional champions are re- quired. As the public health community is already a critical voice in advancing the call for climate change action, climate change could emerge as an issue on which the business and public health communities align.

CONTRIBUTORS The authors contributed equally to this article.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article was developed under an as- sistanceagreement(RD-835871) awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Yale University.

D. Esty thanks Ram Sachs and Lucy Kessler for their research assistance on this article. He also wishes to highlight that he is a principal in Constellation Research and Technology, a fintech company that is developing improved ways of gauging corporate sustainability for the purposes of guiding investors toward more sustainable investing.

Note. This article has not been for- mally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily re- flect those of the EPA. The EPA does not endorse any products or commercial ser- vices mentioned in this publication.

REFERENCES 1. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1965.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. History. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/ organization_history.shtml. Accessed May 31, 2017.

3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fifth assessment report. Geneva, Switzerland; 2014.

4. Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 2004;306(5702): 1686.

5. Speth G. The Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC: Council on Environ- mental Quality; 1980.

6. University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. The Paris pledge for action. Available at: http:// www.parispledgeforaction.org/read. Accessed June 2, 2017.

7. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 1992.

8. United Nations Paris Agreement Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, NY: United Nations; 2015.

9. UN News. Climate summit: “All hands on deck” declares ban, calling for lead- ership, concrete action. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story. asp?NewsID=48787#.WS2tiGXuxVo. Accessed May 31, 2017.

10. Glicksman RL. Anatomy of industry resistance to climate change: a familiar litany. In: Driesen DM, ed. Economic Thought and U.S. Climate Change Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press; 2010.

11. Vandenbergh MP, Gilligan JA. Be- yond gridlock. Columbia J Environ Law. 2016;40(2):217–303.

12. Senge PM, Smith B, Kruschwitz N, Laur J, Schley S. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York, NY: Crown Business; 2010.

13. Esty DC, Winston A. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2009.

14. Unilever. Sustainable living. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/ sustainable-living. Accessed June 2, 2017.

15. Musk E. The secret Tesla Motors master plan (just between you and me). 2006. Available at: https://www.tesla. com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master- plan-just-between-you-and-me. Accessed June 2, 2017.

16. World Economic Forum. These 79 CEOs believe in global climate action. 2015. Available at: https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/open- letter-from-ceos-to-world-leaders- urging-climate-action. Accessed May 31, 2017.

17. Donnan S, Crooks E. GE’s Immelt urges Trump to remain in Paris climate accord. Available at: https://www.ft. com/content/245babfe-311b-11e7- 9555-23ef563ecf9a. 2017. Accessed May 31, 2017.

18. World Bank. We support putting a price on carbon. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ EXTSDNET/Resources/carbon- pricing-supporters-list-UPDATED- 110614.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2017.

19. Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition. 2016–2017 Carbon pricing leadership report. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2017.

20. Low-Carbon USA. Business backs low-carbon USA. Available at: http:// lowcarbonusa.org/business. Accessed May 31, 2017.

21. Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harv Bus Rev. 1995;73(5):120–134.

22. Ameer R, Othman R. Sustainability practices and corporate financial perfor- mance: a study based on the top global corporations. J Bus Ethics. 2012;108(1): 61–79.

23. Spar DL, La Mure LT. The power of activism: assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. Calif Manage Rev. 2003; 45(3):78–101.

24. Lubin DA, Esty DC. The sustainability imperative. Harv Bus Rev. 2010;88(5): 42–50.

AJPH PERSPECTIVES

Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2 AJPH Esty and Bell Peer Reviewed Editorial S83

25. Haanaes K, Michael D, Jurgens J, Rangan S. Making sustainability profit- able. Harv Bus Rev. 2013;91(3):110–115.

26. Lourenco I, Callen JL, Branco MC, Dias Curto JD. The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. J Bus Ethics. 2014;119(1):17–28.

27. Kiron D, Kruschwitz N, Haanaes K, Reeves M, Goh E. The innovation bot- tom line. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2013; 54(3):1–21.

28. Chesbrough HG. GE’s ecomagination challenge: an experimentinopeninnovation. Calif Manage Rev. 2012;54(3):140–154.

29. Williams F. Meet the nine billion-dollar companies turning a profit from sustain- ability. 2016. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/sustainable-business/ 2016/jan/02/billion-dollar-companies- sustainability-green-giants-tesla-chipotle- ikea-nike-toyota-whole-foods. Accessed June 2, 2017.

30. Interbrand. Best global brands 2016 rankings. Available at: http://interbrand. com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2016/ ranking/cocacola. Accessed May 31, 2017.

31. Porter ME, Kramer MR. Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89(1/2): 62–77.

32. Moreano G. CNBC.com. A year later: BP down $49 billion in market cap. 2011. Available at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/ 42677477. Accessed June 9, 2017.

33. Shepardson D. VW must face U.S. investor lawsuit in emissions scandal. 2017. Available at: http://www.reuters. com/article/volkswagen-emissions- idUSL1N1EV01M. Accessed June 9, 2017.

34. Hammond JH, Sesia A. Ceasars En- tertainment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Case 615-031; 2014.

35. Esty DC, Cort T. Corporate sustain- ability metrics: what investors need and don’t get. J Environmental Investing. 2017; 54(3):140–154.

36. A Climate of Corporate Control: How CorporationsHave Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists; 2012.

37. US Environmental Protection Agency. What they are saying about President Trump’s executive order on energy independence. 2017.Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/ what-they-are-saying-about-president- trumps-executive-order-energy- independence. Accessed June 8, 2017.

38. Supran G, Oreskes N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communi- cations (1977-2014). Environ Res Lett. 2017; 12(8):084019.

39. Chu S, Majumdar A. Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature. 2012;488(7411):294–303.

40. AnnualEnergyOutlook2017WithProjects to 2050. Washington, DC: US Energy In- formation Administration; 2017.

41. Shearer C, Ghio N, Myllyvirta L, Yu A, Nace T. Boom and bust 2017: tracking the global coal plant pipeline. 2017. Available at: https://www.sierraclub.org/ sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads- wysiwig/final%20boom%20and%20bust %202017%20%283-27-16%29.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2018.

42. Revesz R, Lienke J. Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2016.

43. Waltman RA. Assessing the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act section 111(D) and the Clean Power Plan. Vill Envt L J. 2016;27(1):35–62.

44. Rabinowitz A. Undoing the Clean Power Plan will be a legal nightmare. 2017. Available at: https://newrepublic. com/article/141686/undoing-clean- power-plan-will-legal-nightmare. Accessed June 6, 2017.

45. Mehling MA. A new direction for US climate policy: assessing the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency. Carbon & Climate Law Review. 2017;11(1):3–24.

46. Reitze AW. Federal regulation of coal-fired electric power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Utah Environ- mental Law Review. 2012;32(2):391–429.

47. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser- Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M. Cli- mate Change in the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communications; 2017.

48. Center for Climate and Energy So- lutions. Climate action plans. Available at: https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/ policy-maps/climate-action-plans. Accessed June 2, 2017.

49. Macbeth H, Pacyniak G, Zyla KA, Arroyo V. State Leadership Driving the Shift to Clean Energy: 2016 Update. Wash- ington, DC: Georgetown Climate Cen- ter; 2016.

50. Leonard WA. Clean is the new green: clean energy finance and deployment through green banks. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2014;33(1):197–229.

51. Cuomo AM. New York Governor Cuomo, California Governor Brown, and Washington Governor Inslee announce formation of United States Climate Alli- ance. 2017. Available at: https://www. governor.ny.gov/news/new-york- governor-cuomo-california-governor- brown-and-washington-governor- inslee-announce. Accessed June 6, 2017.

52. Tabuchi H, Fountain H. Bucking Trump, these cities, states and companies commit to Paris Accord. 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/ 01/climate/american-cities-climate- standards.html. Accessed June 5, 2017.

53. RE100. Companies. Available at: http://there100.org/companies. Accessed June 6, 2017.

54. Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harv Bus Rev. 2009;87(9):56–64.

55. Out of the Starting Blocks: Tracking Progress on Corporate Climate Action. Lon- don, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project; 2016.

56. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaption, and Vulnerability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

57. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

58. Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S, et al. The Lancet countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. Lancet. 2017;6736(17): 32464–32469.

59. Sarfaty M, Kreslake J, Ewart G, et al. Survey of international members of the American Thoracic Society on climate change and health. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(10):1808–1813.

60. Vidal J. Health effects of climate change highlighted in Paris Agreement. BMJ. 2015;351:h6885.

AJPH PERSPECTIVES

S84 Editorial Peer Reviewed Esty and Bell AJPH Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2