All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Climate Change, Climate change denial, Electoral politics, Trump

On the Climate Crisis, It’s Donald Trump vs. the World

August 21, 2016 Roger Straw

On the Climate Crisis, It’s Donald Trump vs. the World

Posted to Energy August 20, 2016 by Khalid Pitts

Donald Trump is many things, but we now know that in at least one area he would be a totally unique world leader if elected president: He would be the only leader of any nation to reject the science and dangers of climate change.

The Associated Press recently reported on a new study from the Sierra Club that reveals that every current world leader recognizes both the science of climate change and the dangers it poses to humanity.

Some have assumed that leaders of other nations around the world, including those countries most dependent on fossil fuels or with despotic leaders, hold similar views regarding climate denial and opposition to all climate action. But this study demonstrates that, from our closest allies like Canada, Japan and Germany, to the largest carbon emitters like India, China and Brazil, to the most fossil-fuel dependent states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to countries as varied as Zimbabwe, North Korea and Fiji, the leaders of all nations accept the scientific consensus that man is fueling climate change by burning fossil fuels and are calling for urgent action.

America’s closest partners, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have said that “climate change will test our intelligence, our compassion and our will. But we are equal to that challenge.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the Paris climate conference, said there: “This is a pivotal issue of our time. … We are one planet, and climate knows no bounds.”

Trump, in stark contrast, has made his views clear over the last few years. In his opinion, “the scientists are having a lot of fun.” Over the years, he’s described climate change as a “hoax,” “mythical,” “nonexistent” a “con job,” and “bulls- – -.”
He even said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

In actual fact, NASA has made clear that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” on the fact that man is driving climate change by burning fossil fuels.

The Republican Party’s national leadership has long been a notable outlier in the global discussion and national debate on the climate crisis, climate science and the need for action. But it’s only now that we understand just how dangerously far out of step they and their new leader Donald Trump are on this critical issue.

Trump’s absurd position on climate change makes clear that his policies will not just harm the U.S. economy and businesses, but rejecting climate action would undermine America’s global leadership and influence around the world. The world is united as one behind climate action, and Trump’s promise to “cancel” the universal agreement reached in Paris while eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency would completely undermine our standing in the world community and our influence within key alliances.

While Trump claims he will negotiate “fantastic deals” with the rest of the world (think Atlantic City), the reality is that he is poised to undermine decades of progress this country and the world have made on climate action, environmental protection, and ensuring cleaner air to breathe and water to drink. The truth is that Donald Trump is toxic to our environment, noxious to our standing on the world stage.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton believes that “every child and every family in America deserves clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a safe and healthy place to live.” She has and will be a leader on the international climate stage who will build upon our alliances and the progress made in Paris.

What is absolutely clear now is that anyone who cares about the future of humanity’s only home in the universe cannot afford to sit on the sidelines in 2016. We don’t have time to waste four years on the future of this planet. It’s not just all the progress we’ve made on climate action that’s on the line, it’s the health and safety of our families today and future generations to come.

That’s just one of the reasons you can be sure that the Sierra Club will be doing everything we can to elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.

About the Author

Khalid Pitts

Khalid Pitts is national political director of the Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org).

Electoral politics, Oil industry lobby

Western States Petroleum Association Continues to Top California Lobbying Expenses

August 21, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from CounterPunch

Western States Petroleum Association Continues to Top CA Lobbying Expenses

By Dan Bacher, August 19, 2016

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, continued to dominate the lobbying spending in Sacramento in the second quarter of 2016.

“If you can count on anything, it’s WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association) throwing down some serious cash on lobbying,” said Stop Fooling California in their latest newsletter, the Crude Truth. “And this quarter was no exception.”

At the helm of WSPA is President Catherine Reheis-Boyd, former Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called “marine protected areas in Southern California. The “marine protected areas” created under her “leadership” fail to protect the ocean from fracking, offshore oil drilling, oil spills, pollution, military testing, energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than sustainable fishing and gathering.

Reheis-Boyd, who continually pushes for the evisceration of California environmental laws and the expansion of fracking and offshore oil drilling in California, also served on the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast.

The group broke down some alarming Big Oil lobbying figures for the 2015-16 Legislation Session:

• WSPA ranks #1 among lobbying spenders this session, paying $2.2 million to KP Public Affairs, the top-grossing lobbying firm in California.

• WSPA has spent over $3 million so far in 2016, and $14 million since January 2015.

• Overall, the oil lobby has spent nearly $28 million to date in the 2015-16 legislative session.

“That’s an average of over $50,000 per day since January 1, 2015, and includes the $6.3 million in lobbying expenses reported so far in 2016 (over $1 million per month in 2016),” the group said. “If you’re into math, that translates into Big Oil spending $39 per asthmatic child in California to deny their right to breath clean air.”

• Chevron has spent $5.5 million so far in the 2015-16 session. Chevron ranks #5 among all lobbyists in the current session. “If there is any doubt that lobbying equals real influence, look no further than SB32, a bill setting a 40 percent emissions reduction target below 1990 levels by 2030, which may be punted into the next legislative session,” the group added.

For lobbying “its face off,” Stop Fooling California awarded WSPA their latest “Scummy” award.

WSPA and Big Oil wield their power in five major ways: through (1) lobbying; (2) campaign spending; (3) getting appointed to positions on and influencing regulatory panels; (4) creating Astroturf groups: and (5) working in collaboration with media.

Powering California: Big Oil teams up with LA Times

Stop Fooling California’s previous “Scummy” award went to “Powering California” for its new videos praising oil and attacking green energy.

“You may remember Powering California,” the group said. “It’s a front group of Occidental Petroleum’s spinoff company California Resources Corp. (yes, that’s complicated on purpose), which teamed up with the Los Angeles Times’ ‘content solutions’ team to spread industry propaganda last year.”

“Powering California is back, now with a series of videos, at the exact time California is debating critical legislation that will determine our climate future, in California and in other states,” Stop Fooling California said.

As Media Matters for America reported: “Powering California is out with a series of new videos praising oil and attacking clean energy sources. One of the videos baselessly asserts that ‘renewable energy can’t replace oil,’ falsely claims wind energy is ‘expensive,’ and bombastically declares that ‘oil and natural gas are woven into the fabric of America.’ Another video features feel-good man-on-the-street interviews with paid actors touting California’s oil and gas industry.” (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/25/party-conventions-big-oil-s-media-manipulation-strategy-full-display/211879)

Consumer Watchdog: Fossil fuel industry has donated $9.8 to Jerry Brown

Meanwhile, Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based consumer organization, on August 10 released an alarming report claiming that oil, gas and utilities gave $9.8 million to Governor Jerry Brown and his causes, often within days of winning big favors.

“The timing of energy industry donations around important legislation and key pro-industry amendments, as well as key regulatory decisions in which Brown personally intervened, raises troubling questions about whether quid pro quos are routine for this administration,” said consumer advocate Liza Tucker, author of the report, in a press release. “While Brown paints himself as a foe of fossil fuels, his Administration promoted reckless oil drilling, burning dirty natural gas to make electricity, and used old hands from industry and government, placed in key regulatory positions, to protect the fossil fuel-reliant energy industry.”

In spite of its reputation as a green state, California under Governor Jerry Brown is the third biggest oil state in the nation and a promoter of some of the most environmentally devastating policies in the country.

The Governor is promoting as his legacy the Delta Tunnels/California Water Fix, the most environmentally destructive public works project in California history that poses a huge threat to the ecosystems of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Klamath and Trinity river systems. As Brown relentlessly pushes the tunnels plan, his administration is overseeing water policies that are driving winter run-Chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other species closer and closer to extinction.

Jerry Brown also oversaw the “completion” of faux “marine protected areas” under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, overseen by the WSPA president and other corporate interests, in December 2012.

Brown has also promoted carbon trading and REDD policies that pose an enormous threat to Indigenous Peoples around the globe; has done nothing to stop clearcutting of forests by Sierra-Pacific and other timber companies; backs the weakening of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); presided over record water exports from the Delta in 2011; and oversaw massive fish kills of Sacramento splittail and other species in 2011.

Brown may spout “green” rhetoric when he flies off to climate conferences and issues proclamations about John Muir Day and Earth Day, but his actions and policies regarding fish, water and the environment are among the worst of any Governor in recent California history. That’s why to anybody familiar with the real record of Governor Jerry Brown, Consumer Watchdog’s “Dirty Hands” report is no surprise.

Dan Bacher is an environmental journalist in Sacramento. He can be reached at: Dan Bacher danielbacher@fishsniffer.com.

Coal, Coal industry, Oakland Ca, Port of Oakland

Oakland: Utah scraps $53 million plan to ship coal to city

August 21, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from the East Bay Times

Oakland: Utah scraps $53 million plan to ship coal to city

By David DeBolt, 08/19/2016 06:11:11 PM PDT

OAKLAND — Four Utah counties have withdrawn their plan to spend $53 million in state money to ship coal to Oakland, an official said this week.

Carbon County Commissioner Jae Potter’s announcement Wednesday comes less than two months after the Oakland City Council voted 7-0 to ban the storage and handling of coal and petroleum coke in its city.

Potter said the four coal-producing counties will reapply in about a year with a more detailed application. The rural counties continue to support the project and may ask to ship other products like potash through Oakland, Potter said.

File photo: Anti-coal demonstrators rally in front of City Hall before a special council meeting on the shipping and storage of coal on Monday, June 27, 2016, in Oakland, Calif. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)

Utah lawmakers in March approved a bill to invest $53 million of state money to ship coal to the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal. The $250 million export terminal and logistics center located on the Outer Harbor at the former Oakland Army Base is being built by developer Phil Tagami. Terminal Logistic Solutions, run by Jerry Bridges, has the exclusive option to operate the terminal.

Bridges has said coal would be one of several commodities shipped there; others include soda ash, potash, limestone, soybeans and other produce.

While shipments of coal had support from lawmakers and coal-producing counties in Utah, Oakland residents, activists and city leaders strongly objected to the proposal. The Oakland council vote was the only way to stop the coal trains because the council approved the project in 2013. Leaders claimed coal was not part of the conversation then, but the agreement did not specify what could and couldn’t be shipped at the terminal.

Environmental groups argued West Oakland residents would be exposed to greater risks of respiratory illness.

“Polling shows Utahns don’t want public money spent on a terminal in Oakland that will never ship coal,” Brittany King, an organizer with the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter, said in a statement. “Oakland residents and decision makers fought so hard to keep coal out of their backyard, so we are happy that Utah withdrew a proposal that is not worth money, time or the risk to public health and safety.”

Longtime West Oakland activist Margaret Gordon expressed some skepticism over what would be included in Utah’s new application.

“That economy in that state is built around coal,” said Gordon, who supports the Oakland terminal but opposes coal. “I’m optimistically cautious about the whole thing.”

A spokesman for Tagami did not return a phone call Friday afternoon. A day before the council’s vote in June, Tagami’s attorney wrote in a letter to city leaders that legal action would be imminent if coal were blocked. Attorney David Smith called the council’s position “irrational” and “legally indefensible.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. David DeBolt covers Oakland.

Canadian regulation, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Tank car retirement, TC-117

Canada phasing out DOT-111 rail tank cars ahead of schedule

August 20, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from Hazmat Magazine

Canada phasing out potentially dangerous rail tank cars ahead of schedule

By J Nicholson, August 19, 2016

The Canadian federal government will retire the older DOT-111 rail tanker cars — the ones involved in the deadly Lac-Mégantic tragedy — several months earlier than planned. “Protective Direction 38” stipulates that the DOT-111 tanker cars will no longer be permitted to transport crude oil or other dangerous goods on Canadian railways as of November 1st 2016. The original phase out plan called for the tanker cars to be phased out by May of 2017.

An unattended 74-car freight train carrying crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Que., in July 2013. (CBC)

The DOT 111 rail tanker cars do not have a layer of thermal protection. Experts speculate that the Lac-Mégantic rail derailment would not have been as disastrous if the runaway freight train did not have DOT 111 tanker cars. On July 6th 2013, a runaway freight train pulling 72 tanker cars of crude oil exploded in the downtown area of Lac-Mégantic, killing 47 people.

The new standard tanker rail car is the TC-117. It has a thicker steel hull, thermal protection, a full head shield, protective valve covers and a bottom outlet valve for safety. Rail experts say the TC-117 is much more able to resist puncture than the DOT 111.

DOT 111 will still be able to be used by rail companies; however they are not permitted to be used for the transport of dangerous materials such as crude oil.

There are skeptics to the phase out rules on the old rail cars. Mike Benson , the Fire Chief for the northern Ontario community of Gogama, told the Timminspress.com that he is skeptical that the redesign of rail cars, on their own, will ensure safety in his community.

“It’s a good step but a very small step. But the problem isn’t so much the makeup of the cars as it is the maintenance and inspection of the track,” said the fire chief. “All the difference with the new cars is another quarter-inch of steel on either end of the car. These things contain 100,000 litres weighing a million pounds, so it’s not going to change anything if there’s a derailment.”

A more effective policy, said Benson, would be taking steps to prevent similar derailments from happening in the future. That would mean significantly increasing the amount of track maintenance and inspection and decreasing the speed limit for trains in rural areas.

“The companies don’t want to slow their trains down … but with four derailments in three years, I’d say there’s a bit of a problem there,” said Benson.

The Railway Association of Canada is in favour of the move made by the federal government to phase out the tanker cars. Michael Bourque, a spokesperson for the Association stated, “Removing this tank car model from service sooner is an effective step toward ensuring the safe transportation of dangerous goods in Canada. We welcomed harmonized Canada-U.S. tank car standards introduced last year, and we’re equally pleased with the announcement.”

The use of rail cars to transport oil has soared in Canada over the past few years. In 2015, there were 146,000 shipments of crude oil across Canada.