Paris climate talks: Developed countries must do more than reduce emissions

Repost from The Guardian
[Editor:  An important discussion of “survival emissions” in developing nations vs. “lifestyle emissions” in industrial nations.  – RS]

Paris climate talks: Developed countries must do more than reduce emissions

By Shyam Saran, 23 November 2015 05.35 EST  –  Saran is a former foreign secretary of India. He was India’s chief negotiator on climate change from 2007 to 2010
Preparations for the upcoming COP21 climate summit t Le Bourget, near Paris, France
Preparations for the upcoming COP21 climate summit t Le Bourget, near Paris, France. Photograph: Benoit Tessier/Reuters

We are only days away from the climate change summit in Paris. Several world leaders are likely to be present to applaud a successful outcome, which is virtually guaranteed since the bar has been set so low in terms of effort expected from the major industrialized economies.

Under the UN process which the negotiations have been taking place, countries are required only to present their climate pledges (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, which are voluntary and subject to an international review but with no strict compliance procedure.

It is this pledge and review system which will become the template for future climate change action. Past experience shows that such weak international regimes, which posit only a best endeavour commitment, rarely deliver expected results.

The UN recently reported that aggregating all the INDCs so far, the world would be on an a trajectory of 2.7C, when a 2C rise is already the limit of safety defined by scientists.

What many people fail to realize is that global warming is the consequence of the stock of greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly CO2, which has accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel based industrial activity in the industrialized countries of the world.

This is the reason why the UN recognizes the historical responsibility of the developed countries in causing global warming even though current industrial activity in major developing countries such as China and, to a much lesser extent, India is adding incrementally to that stock.

If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.

A coal-fired power plant near residential property in Badarpur, Delhi, India
Emissions billow from smokestacks at a coal-fired power plant near residential property in Badarpur, Delhi, India. Photograph: Kuni Takahashi / Bloomberg / Getty Images

One often hears the argument that it is all very well to preach equity but given the planetary emergency the world faces from the threat of climate change we must set aside the equity principle in the interests of humanity as a whole. This is a wholly specious and self serving argument. It reflects the sense of entitlement to an affluent lifestyle, based on energy intensive production and consumption, while denying the even modest aspirations of people in developing countries.

In a densely interconnected and globalised world, it will be impossible to maintain islands of prosperity in an ocean of poverty and deprivation. It is not that developing countries are claiming the right to spew as much carbon as possible into the atmosphere without regard to the health of the planet.

As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN. Success may elude Paris if developed countries continue to evade their responsibility to provide adequate financial resources and transfer appropriate technologies to developing countries to enable them to enhance their own domestic efforts.

Climate negotiations have become less about meeting an elemental challenge to human survival and more about safeguarding narrowly conceived economic self interests of nations. These are negotiations conducted in a competitive frame, where each party gives as little as possible and extracts as much as possible. The inevitable result is a least common denominator result and this is what is expected at Paris.

Imagine if each country came with the intention to contribute as much as it can and take away as little benefit to itself as possible, because we are all faced with an urgent and global challenge. We would then get a maximal outcome – which is what the world requires if it has to escape the catastrophic consequences of climate change. The negotiating dynamic may change dramatically.

Villagers carry illegally scavenged coal from an open-cast coal mine in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
Villagers carry illegally scavenged coal from an open-cast coal mine in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India, trying to earn a few dollars a day. Photograph: Kuni Takahashi/Getty Images

The leaders can capture the imagination of people around the world if they explicitly acknowledge the seriousness of the threat we all confront and commit themselves to a global collaborative effort to deal with it based on the principle of equitable burden sharing.

Countries can then contribute according to their capacities and resource availability and I have no doubt that emerging countries such as India, China or Brazil will be enthusiastic participants in such initiatives. Even if we are unable at this stage to go beyond the INDCs which have already been submitted the adoption of these initiatives may reassure the world that a new and more promising process has been set in motion to deliver a more sustainable future for our common home.

Laws regulating crude oil trains in several states

Repost from Public Source
[Editor:  Although the emphasis here is on Pennsylvania, this article gives some detail on state laws regulating crude oil trains in several other states.  – RS]

Can Pennsylvania officials do more to address crude oil train safety?

Other states with heavy crude-by-rail traffic have passed various laws to address safety. Pennsylvania legislators have not.

By Natasha Khan | PublicSource | Nov. 22, 2015
Can Pennsylvania officials do more to address crude oil train safety?
Legislators in states with an uptick in crude-by-rail traffic have passed laws and changed policies. But not in Pennsylvania. (iStock photo)

They hug rivers, breeze by farms and cross 100-year-old bridges. They chug past hospitals, schools, stadiums and many, many homes. And sometimes, they derail.

As shipments of crude oil by train have increased nationwide, anxiety over the chance of a derailment happening in a big city, like Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, has grown.

Philadelphia Energy Solutions, a refinery, is the nation’s largest consumer of fracked oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, which makes Pennsylvania a top destination for oil trains.

PublicSource reported in March that 1.5 million Pennsylvanians live within a half-mile of tracks that haul crude oil — the federally recommended evacuation zone for oil train fires.

While the railroad industry says that 99.99 percent of shipments of oil by rail safely make it to their destinations, there have been at least seven derailments of trains carrying crude oil involving spills or fires in North America this year; the latest spill was earlier this month in Wisconsin.

So far, only minor derailments have occurred in Pennsylvania. Some say it’s only a matter of time before the state experiences a big crash.

Regulating railroads is mostly under the purview of the federal government, which recently issued new safety standards for older tank cars and braking systems. But legislators in some states with heavy crude-by-rail traffic have passed laws and changed policies out of fear of what a major derailment could mean for their states.

While Gov. Tom Wolf has taken some action on the issue — most notably commissioning a rail safety expert to assess ways to lower risks of derailments — no laws addressing prevention or emergency response have passed, or been introduced, by state legislators in Pennsylvania.

State_legislation_on_crude_oil_trains

“There have been bills introduced in New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Washington state and California, and I haven’t seen squat out of Pennsylvania,” said Fred Millar, an independent hazardous materials consultant in Washington, D.C.

Laws passed in other states vary and offer several paths for Pennsylvania to consider.

In 2014, Minnesota passed a law that raises millions of dollars a year to fund emergency response initiatives, state studies on infrastructure improvements and rail inspectors.

“I feel like there’s a huge responsibility for state and even local governments to be laying down these issues and challenging the railroads,” said the law’s sponsor, state Rep. Frank Hornstein (D-Minn).

In May, Washington state passed a law requiring railroads to show oil spill response plans and how they would pay cleanup costs for a worst-case spill. The law also placed a fee on barrels of oil entering the state to help pay for more emergency response programs. Additionally, the law required more public disclosure of crude oil train shipments.

A few days after Wisconsin experienced two train derailments in early November, state lawmakers introduced rail safety legislation that addressed prevention and response.

‘Evaluating options’

A group of Pennsylvania state senators have been exploring oil train safety issues.

“As far as legislative action, we are in the process of evaluating options,” said Nolan Ritchie, assistant executive director of the Pennsylvania Senate Transportation Committee, which is looking at the issue along with the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

Sen. John Rafferty, R-Berks/Chester/Montgomery, chairman of the transportation committee, did not want to comment until they have something they plan to introduce, according to Ritchie.

Ritchie said they’re looking at safety precautions taken by railroads, what the governor has done and laws in other states, while also making sure Pennsylvania doesn’t overstep legally.

“Pennsylvania really cannot add additional regulations that would basically be under the jurisdiction of the federal government,” he said.

Some states are testing that idea. Similar to Washington’s law, California passed legislation in 2014 requiring that railroads provide emergency response plans and proof they can pay oil spill cleanup costs. Two railroads and an industry group sued claiming federal law preempts state rail laws.

In June, a federal court dismissed the case because the state hadn’t started enforcing the law, and railroads couldn’t challenge it if it hadn’t yet been enforced. The law is now in effect.

Part of the issue for railroads is the inconsistency of having to follow different rules in each state with oil trains moving across the country.

“It’s a national system that needs to be managed as a national system,” said Grady Cothen, a retired Federal Railroad Administration safety official. “And you really can’t lay on [state officials] for regulating the safety of railroad operations. If you do, it’s a very inefficient patchwork and you end up with railroads lobbying legislatures all over the United States… ”

Prevention and response

rail car
A train carrying crude oil can be identified by a red triangle-shaped placard on tank cars with the code 1267. It is a U.S. Department of Transportation classification code that identifies the hazardous material for emergency responders. (Photo by Molly Duerig/PublicSource)

Matt Stepp, policy director at environmental group PennFuture, said there are legislative steps that can be taken now in Pennsylvania.

He said the state should find or create revenue streams to pay for oil spill prevention plans and more robust emergency response initiatives.

“They need to come up with a consistent revenue stream where they put some money … to double, if not triple, the number of inspectors the state can deploy to the areas with a lot of traffic,” Stepp said.

Washington state’s 2015 oil train law put oil refineries on the hook for a 4-cent per barrel spill prevention tax and 1-cent oil spill response tax on oil moved by rail in bulk. The funds are put toward emergency response programs in oil train communities. Washington’s law also increased a state tax on railroads that helped pay for eight new rail inspectors.

In August, Wolf released a rail safety report recommending the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission [PUC] add rail inspectors. PUC Chairman Gladys Brown said the commission has filled one vacancy for an inspector since the report and is currently looking to fill another.

Brown said they hope to have the funds to hire two more after that to work with the Federal Railroad Administration to monitor the tracks. Railroads also hire their own inspectors.

To create more funding for cleanup and response programs in California, legislators approved a 6.5-cent fee on oil companies for every barrel of oil that comes into the state by rail.

Pennsylvania State Planning and Policy Secretary John Hanger said these kinds of fees are something Wolf’s administration is “open to,” but that they would likely require legislative action.

Within the last year and a half, Washington state and New York have increased funding for oil spill response funds.

At the national level, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa, has proposed a bill that would put a $175 fee per shipment on each older DOT-111 tank car, which have been known to catch fire or spill when trains derail and are being phased out. The money generated by the bill would go to oil spill cleanup costs, training emergency responders and hiring railroad inspectors.

Stepp said state legislators also should create a cleanup fund that communities can tap into if an accident happens. Pennsylvania doesn’t have one, although there is a federal oil spill fund that states can access.

“Whether you’re talking about a big city like Philly or a county, none of them are necessarily prepared for taking on such a kind of accident [crude oil derailment] and the long term impacts of that accident,” he said.

Railroad and oil companies would “play a role” in cleanup costs, Stepp said, but that can take time and sometimes doesn’t cover all the mitigation costs. “Taxpayers tend to be on the hook for at least some of it,” he said.

Railroads say safety first

Officials from CSX and Norfolk Southern also testified at a hearing with the two state Senate committees on how they’ve advanced safety for crude oil transport. The officials focused on how they’ve trained first responders across Pennsylvania, supported tougher federal tank car standards and invested billions to improve track conditions.

“We are investing in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to further enhance safety and efficiency as we move the goods that move America,” David Pidgeon, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, wrote in an email.

“Safety is CSX’s highest priority,” CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle wrote in an email.

Bakken_in_Pennsylvania
You can use this map to explore Bakken crude oil train routes within Pennsylvania. Use the search bar to zoom in and see whether your house, workplace or school is located within the federal half-mile evacuation zone.

Their safety precautions aren’t always sufficient. In February, a CSX oil train derailed in Mount Carbon, W.V. The crash caused explosions and people were evacuatedfrom their homes. Regulators discovered a contractor twice found a flaw in a rail in the months before the accident.

But the railroad didn’t repair it and the rail cracked, causing the derailment of 27 cars on the 107-car oil train. Local residents are suing the railroad for failing to properly inspect the track.

In October, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) fined CSX and announced new track guidelines, including calling for railroads to improve inspections.

Doolittle said CSX is working with the FRA to develop additional inspection processes to more quickly and accurately identify rail flaws.

State rail safety report

The state rail safety report was prepared by Allan Zarembski, a University of Delaware railroad engineering professor and an expert in railway track and structures. He focused on how railroads could prevent track and railcar wheel failures.

The report lists 27 steps that can be taken by railroads and state agencies to reduce the risk of a derailment in the state.

Spokesmen for Norfolk Southern and CSXwouldn’t talk to PublicSource about whether they have adopted the recommendations. Instead both sent statements listing what they’ve done to improve safety and said they’re open to working with state officials to address the issue.

“The railroads are currently meeting some, but not all, of the recommendations,” Jeff Sheridan, Wolf’s spokesman, wrote in an email.

For instance, both railroads have refused to adopt a 35 mph speed limit for oil trains through cities with populations of more than 100,000, requested by the governor and Casey. They run them at a maximum of 40 mph.

“The administration continues to pursue this recommendation and absolutely feels that this is [an] important step to reduce the chances of a derailment,” Sheridan wrote.

Hanger said the recommendations aimed at state agencies have almost all been adopted.

These included steps the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) can take to improve response initiatives.

Ruth Miller, a PEMA spokeswoman, said the agency has focused on crude-by-rail emergency planning and is studying where more training and response materials may be needed.

“PEMA plans to provide opportunities for additional exercises as may be requested or needed (as funding is available),” she wrote in an email.

Emergency response coordinators in Cambria, Dauphin and Huntingdon counties told PublicSource that first responders have received more training regarding crude oil trains — some of it paid for by the railroads and some by state grants — but more is needed.

Lancaster County emergency response managers testified in June that the Legislature should expand the law on hazardous materials emergency planning to create more funding.

“The emergency services are prepared for a small-scale incident,” said Lancaster County Commissioner Scott Martin at the hearing, “but the amounts involved in a train spill or fire would be quickly overwhelming.”

Stanford Students Demand Divestment From Fossil Fuel Industry During Lengthy Sit-In

Repost from KCBS740 / 5KPIX
[Editor:  Interesting news video, but I apologize for the commercial ad.  Perhaps best to go to Fossil Free Stanford’s Latest Blog Updates or their Live Images and Tweets.  Go Stanford students!!  – RS]

Stanford Students Demand Divestment From Fossil Fuel Industry During Lengthy Sit-In

November 20, 2015 12:09 PM


STANFORD (CBS SF) — Stanford University students and supporters were holding a rally Friday culminating a five-day sit-in calling for the college’s divestment from the fossil fuel industry.

More than 100 students have been camping out at the main quad since Monday afternoon outside University President John Hennessy’s office demanding administrators divest from the top 100 oil and gas companies .

The action was organized through Fossil Free Stanford, a student organization that has been working on the effort for nearly three years, organizer Michael Peñuelas said.

The group was inviting the administrators to address any concerns at the 11 a.m. rally, when students will be prepared to accept any charges the university may file against them, according to Peñuelas.

On Thursday night, the university sent the group a notice stating that administrators are considering suspension of their request for divestment from oil and gas companies due to the action, which was a disappoint for Peñuelas.

The notice also stated that if students didn’t leave the quad with their belongings by 5 p.m. Friday the university would review them under its Fundamental Standard, which outlines conduct expected from students, Peñuelas said.

The students have also violated the college’s use of the main quad policy and trespassed in violation of state law since they are blocking an administration building, according to university officials.

The sit-in is surrounding a building housing the university’s president and provost offices, where no staff have shown up since Monday, Peñuelas said.

The students plan to leave the quad at the end of the rally to participate in a Transgender Day of Remembrance scheduled in the afternoon, Peñuelas said.

The university has a Thanksgiving recess scheduled next week.

The group held a meeting with Hennessy on the issue last week and attempted to schedule another one with him for Friday, according to organizer Michael Peñuelas.

Throughout this week, professors have held classes at the quad in support of the group’s cause and teach-ins on environmental issues, Peñuelas said.

About 30 alumni rallied with the students on Thursday calling for divestment and said they will not make contributions to the university unless they follow through with the divestment, Peñuelas said.

Seniors have also pledged to not donate to the senior gift, a fundraiser that helps contribute to The Stanford Fund to assist in university scholarships, academic programs and student organizations , according to Peñuelas.

Last year, the university divested from the coal industry after a petition brought forward by Fossil Free Stanford and recommendations from the Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing.

USGS Scientist to Insurance Industry: Earthquake triggering from fracking is well-established

Repost from Business Insurance

Thoughtful well placement could mitigate property risks from fracking quakes

By Gloria Gonzalez, November 20, 2015

Fracking activities are contributing to the rising number of earthquakes in Oklahoma and other states, but the risks to property can be reduced, according to a geological expert.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is an oil and gas production technique that involves injecting water under high pressure into a bedrock formation to increase the flow of oil and gas to a well from petroleum-bearing rock formations.

The injection of fluids in fracking and other activities is one of the contributing causes to increased seismicity, Bill Leith, senior science advisor for the U.S. Geological Survey based in Reston, Virginia, said at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2015 fall meeting in National Harbor, Maryland on Thursday.

“The phenomena of earthquake triggering is well-established,” he said. “And there have been many cases in which earthquakes have been turned on and turned off by beginning and ending injection.”

Risk management concepts that can be implemented to minimize the risk posed by fracking-induced quakes includes avoiding fluid injection in known fault areas and locating injection wells away from population centers and critical facilities, Mr. Leith said.

“The risk from earthquakes can be minimized by taking various actions and by thoughtful decisions about permitting,” he said. “Risk is the thing that we can control by our own actions, by taking steps to mitigate the hazard.”

Fracking is rarely the cause of “felt” earthquakes, but fracking activities have been found responsible for quakes up to magnitude 4.5 in Canada during shale gas recovery, Mr. Leith said. The Richter scale assigns a number to quantify the magnitude of energy released by an earthquake.

About 150 million Americans live in areas exposed to natural quake hazards — double the number of Americans who lived in quake-vulnerable areas in 1990, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Oklahoma has experienced a “remarkable” increase in the number of quakes in the 3.0 or greater range, he said, with recorded quakes at this level soaring from 109 in 2013 to 585 quakes in 2014.

“The increase in the seismicity implies that larger earthquakes are possible,” Mr. Leith said. “That is increasing the hazard. The construction in Oklahoma is at a higher risk, and we’ve seen a higher risk of damage to houses in the suburbs of Oklahoma City and up in the northern part of the state as a result of these small to moderate earthquakes.”

In October, Oklahoma Insurance Department Commissioner John Doak required insurers to notify their policyholders about their coverage of earthquakes arguably or actually resulting from fracking activities. Some insurers in the state have amended their policy forms to cover damages resulting from fracking, others have waived the man-made earthquake exclusion and a third group still excludes fracking-induced quakes, creating significant confusion in the marketplace, according to the bulletin.

For safe and healthy communities…