United Church of Canada Sells Fossil Fuel Holdings, Commits $6 Million to Alternative Energy to Save Creation
By Vincent Funaro , August 16, 2015|8:05 am
United Church of Canada
The United Church of Canada plans to invest nearly $6 million into alternative energy sources that it acquired from selling all of its assets in fossil fuels. The denomination views the move as a bold step toward stewarding the gift of creation.
“Care for creation and concern for the way that climate is impacting the most marginalized populations made this move an act of justice, of faith, and of solidarity with First Nations and other impacted communities,” said Christine Boyle, General Council commissioner of the United Church and a veteran climate advocate, according to the National Advocate.
The church will sell off around $5.9 million in holdings from 200 of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.
The United Church of Canada joins both Pope Francis and the Episcopal Church in their quest to help the environment.
“The vote says that this is a moral issue and that we really have to think about where we are putting our money,” said Betsy Blake Bennett, archdeacon in the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska.
“At a point where we are losing species and where human life itself is threatened by climate change, the Church, by acting on it, is saying that this is a moral issue and something that everyone needs to look at seriously,” added Bennett.
The Episcopal Church’s position echoes that of Francis who released an encyclical dealing with climate change back June. It dealt with how climate change is affecting God’s creation and was supported by over 300 Evangelical leaders.
The 184-page “Laudato Si,” translated in English as “Praise Be to You,” included the pope’s response to these challenges from a spiritual perspective.
“The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change. The Creator does not abandon us; He never forsakes His loving plan or repents of having created us,” Francis wrote.
“Particular appreciation is owed to those who tirelessly seek to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poorest. Young people demand change. They wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the excluded.”
US eases crude oil export ban; allows trading with Mexico
By Josh Lederman, Aug. 14, 2015 3:34 PM EDT
EDGARTOWN, Mass. (AP) — The Obama administration approved limited crude oil trading with Mexico on Friday, further easing the longstanding U.S. ban on crude exports that has drawn consternation from Republicans and energy producers.
Mexico’s state-run oil company Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, had sought to import about 100,000 barrels of light crude a day and proposed a deal last year in which Mexico would trade its own heavier crude for lighter U.S. crude. A major crude exporter for decades, Mexico has seen its oil production fall in recent years.
The license applications to be approved by the U.S. Commerce Department allow for the exchange of similar amounts of U.S. and Mexican crude, said a senior Obama administration official, who wasn’t authorized to comment by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official didn’t disclose whether all 100,000 barrels requested would be allowed.
While the Commerce Department simultaneously rejected other applications for crude exports that violated the ban, the move to allow trading with Mexico marked a significant shift and an additional sign that the Obama administration may be open to loosening the export ban. Exchanges of oil are one of a handful of exemptions permitted under the export ban put in place by Congress.
The export ban is a relic of the 1970s, after an OPEC oil embargo led to fuel rationing, high prices and iconic images of long lines of cars waiting to fuel up. But Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, have said those days are long gone, arguing that lifting the ban could make the U.S. an energy superpower and boost the economy.
Republicans from energy-producing states hailed the decision, as did trade groups representing the oil industry. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has pushed for lifting the ban, called it a positive step but added that she would still push for full repeal “as quickly as possible.”
“Trade with Mexico is a long-overdue step that will benefit our economy and North American energy security, but we shouldn’t stop there,” said Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute.
But environmental groups have opposed lifting the ban out of concern it would spur further drilling for crude oil in the U.S. Pemex’s proposal has also drawn criticism in Mexico, where residents are sensitive about the country’s falling oil production despite warnings from officials that Mexico could become a net importer if it doesn’t explore new oil reserves.
The move to trade crude with Mexico comes as the Obama administration weighs a long-delayed decision about whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. That proposed project would carry crude oil from Canada’s tar sands to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, so the influx of heavy crude from Mexico could play into a decision about whether the controversial pipeline is necessary.
Last month a Senate panel approved a bill championed by Murkowski that would lift the 40-year-old-ban — plus open more areas of the Arctic, Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean to oil and gas exploration. No Democrats on the committee voted for the bill. The environmental group Oceana called it “a massive give-away to Big Oil.”
From: Sarah Rose, Chief Executive Officer, California League of Conservation Voters Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 8:01 AM Subject: BREAKING: In California, Oil Industry Spends Millions on State-Level Lobbying
Breaking news:
In a report just released by the California Secretary of State, we can see for the first time just how far the oil industry is willing to go to influence state lawmakers. Here what we know:
Oil industry lobbyists spent $6.2 million − in just the first six months of this year – to push their agenda on state-level issues in California.
Oil companies are spending more than $1 million per month to stop Californians like us from cleaning up the air we breathe, protecting our drinking water supplies, shifting to renewable energy, and preventing future oil spills.
They’re not slowing down. In fact, this week the oil industry’s main lobbying group WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association) launched an all-out attack on climate change bills in the statehouse right now. Under the mask of their front group “California Driver’s Alliance,” WSPA’s deceptive and manipulative ads are now running on television, internet, and radio in several key legislative districts throughout the state.
We can beat them, but we need your help. Right now, we’re fighting to pass a historic package of climate change laws that will thrust California back into the forefront of global climate leadership. Here at CLCV, we’ve faced off against WSPA in countless battles over our 40-year history. We’ve beat them enough times to know what works – and it’s you (yes, you!) persistently contacting your lawmakers, speaking your mind, and personally insisting that your life and your family’s future are more important than the profit margins at Chevron and Shell. Take action and send your message to lawmakers right now. >>
Last year, the oil industry spent a record $20 million in lobbying to try to stop the full implementation of California’s first landmark climate and clean energy law, AB 32 – but they failed, because we fought back. Thousands of us in the California League of Conservation Voters stood side-by-side with our allies and fought back against WSPA’s cynical propaganda. Together, we defeated their pro-pollution agenda, and now transportation fuels (which are responsible for 40% of carbon pollution and 80% of smog-causing pollution produced in CA) are included under the “cap” in cap-and-trade.
I’m proud of our victory last year, but the real story is we won that battle by the skin of our teeth. Things very easily could have gone the other way if we didn’t have so much help from voters like you. Now, the stakes are even higher, and the oil industry is on track to break last year’s spending record to lobby against us. We need your help today: Stand with us now. >>
Sincerely,
Sarah Rose Chief Executive Officer California League of Conservation Voters
P.S. As they attempt to hide from public scrutiny, oil companies funnel most of their California lobbying cash through the industry lobbying group WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association). But one oil company − Chevron – went above and beyond. In addition to their WSPA contributions, Chevron spent $1.5 million lobbying for influence over California laws. That means two spots on California’s top-five list for big-spending lobbyists belong to Big Oil. We can’t let them win. Please, speak out about climate change right now: http://ecovote.org/ActOnClimate >>
Additional background: CLCV supports Senate Bill 32 (Pavley) and Senate Bill 350 (de León) to combat climate change, reduce pollution, create clean energy jobs, and ensure that all California communities are prepared for the future. Specifically, these important bills call for bold but achievable new climate goals:
Increase from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources
Reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent
Double the energy efficiency of existing buildings
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
We need to keep making progress to address the challenges presented by climate change, especially in our hardest-hit communities. Senate pro Tem Kevin de León put it best: “For too long, poor and working class families in California’s most polluted communities do not have the opportunity to invest in clean, efficient transportation … We need to move the state away from fossil fuels, away from the grip of oil … This is common sense climate policy.”
Since 1972, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) has protected our land, air, water, and public health as the non-partisan political arm of the environmental movement. CLCV’s mission is to protect and enhance the environment and the health of all California communities by electing environmental champions, advancing critical priorities, and holding policymakers accountable. You can unsubscribe at any time, but we hope you’ll stay. You make a big difference with CLCV, because our political strength comes from members like you. Thanks for reading, and thank you for everything you do to make California a cleaner, safer, and healthier place to call home.
Heather J. Carlson, Aug 15, 2015 10:13 am
The Olmsted County Sheriff’s Deparment owns this retired U.S. Military MRAP Armored Vehicle. Scott Jacobson
Local law enforcement agencies applying for armored vehicles from the Pentagon cited high-profile visitors to Mayo Clinic, Rochester’s expected population growth and the Prairie Island nuclear plant in their requests.
Mother Jones recently made public more than 450 law enforcement agencies’ applications for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs. Those documents show that in 2013 the Austin Police Department, Olmsted County Sheriff’s Office and Goodhue County Sheriff’s Office all applied for an armored vehicle.
In its application, the Olmsted County Sheriff’s Office noted that “Rochester/Olmsted County is home to the Mayo Clinic which routinely hosts Foreign Heads of State and VIPs.” It also mentioned the potential population growth expected to accompany Destination Medical Center — a $6 billion initiative to transform Rochester into a global destination for health care.
The county’s application proved to be successful, with the sheriff’s office receiving an armored vehicle in 2013. Capt. Scott Behrns, of the Olmsted County Sheriff’s Office, filled out the Pentagon application and said having so many VIPs and foreign heads of state visiting the city every year is a security concern.
“We get more VIPs here than people realize, I think. And a lot of it is very low key and handled well, but when they are here it does pose a security threat and we certainly don’t want anything to happen to a visiting VIP, a foreign head of state while they are here visiting the clinic,” he said.
Behrns said the MRAP isn’t routinely used for these visits but is available in case something goes wrong and individuals need to be rescued quickly from a dangerous situation.
Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson said it’s difficult to estimate just how many foreign dignitaries local authorities help protect because it can vary dramatically from year to year. Generally, the police department teams up with the Secret Service or the State Department to provide security.
“It’s not used as a standard measure, but if things do go horribly awry, there are resources you can rely on. Fortunately, we haven’t had to make that decision. All of the visits we’ve had have gone well,” Peterson said.
The use of armored vehicles and other military equipment has come under increased scrutiny since last year’s police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown and the violence that followed in Ferguson, Mo.
Billions of dollars worth of military equipment from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been given to local law enforcement agencies across the country.
A seven-member police oversight commission was recently established in Rochester to review police policies and practices, and that commission could address the issue of military equipment. Commission Chairman Allan Witz could not be reached for comment for this article.
A way to prevent violence?
Local law enforcement agencies that have received armored vehicles say they have helped prevent possible violence. Behrns said Olmsted County’s MRAP was sent to Fillmore County last year after a potentially armed suspect with explosives barricaded himself in a bus on a remote farmyard. After the armored vehicle arrived, authorities were able to arrest the man peacefully.
“(The suspect) did make a statement to the effect that because we had the big vehicle, he knew were weren’t leaving and he decided to give up,” Behrns said.
Fears about the safety of officers prompted the Austin Police Department to apply for an MRAP, according to Austin Police Detective Todd Clennon. The idea to try to get the military vehicle came after a woman was shot in rural Mower County. Police were faced with the tough task of trying to apprehend armed men on the property, which had a long driveway surrounded by an open field.
“Ultimately, my guys used great skill and decision making and jumped in the back of a 4-wheel drive pickup truck and bounced their way through a mile of a corn field with their weapons and gear,” Clennon said.
The police managed to get behind a farm building and arrest the men safely. But the incident got Clennon thinking and he decided to look into getting an armed vehicle for these types of high-risk arrest situations. They applied in 2013, citing that the police department and Mower County Sheriff’s Office have a joint Special Incident Response Team. They received an armored vehicle in 2013.
Goodhue County rejects armed vehicle grant
Goodhue County Sheriff’s Office applied for a grant in 2013 for an armored vehicle, noting that the department is responsible for responding to threats against Prairie Island nuclear plant. The department’s initial request was unsuccessful. They applied again last year and late last month, the department learned it had received a grant for a $325,000 armored vehicle.
But before the department can get the vehicle, the county board has to sign off on an $81,000 local match. Goodhue County Sheriff Scott McNurlin said last year that the board voted unanimously in favor of the department applying for the grant and planned to set the money aside for the local match. But on Thursday, the Goodhue County Board of Commissioners voted 3 to 2 against accepting the grant. Opponents cited concerns about the local cost. It is possible that the board may reconsider the issue at its Tuesday meeting.
The county has a 32-year-old armored vehicle, but McNurlin said its “woefully outdated.” The new vehicle would have a pressurized interior, making it an ideal rescue vehicle in the case of a potential nuclear disaster or oil train derailment.
“If there ever was an unfortunate incident at the power plant and a release was imminent or could occur, we can use the vehicle to actually evacuate people because it has the self-contained unit,” he said.
Goodhue County Commissioner Brad Anderson voted in favor of getting the armored vehicle and said he hopes fellow commissioners will change their minds and back the proposal.
Anderson added, “They should have said no last year if they seriously didn’t want to do it. Times haven’t changed.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.