All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

California pushes to extend its groundbreaking Global Warming Act

Repost from the San Francisco Chronicle

Sacramento’s climate on climate change

Editorial, August 8, 2016 4:46pm
The governor’s sense of urgency is understandable — there are lots of threats to California’s climate change fight right now. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press
The governor’s sense of urgency is understandable — there are lots of threats to California’s climate change fight right now. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press

Ten years after California passed AB32, our landmark law to fight climate change, the Legislature is being pushed to pass its successor. SB32, envisioned as the logical next step in California’s push, would set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

It should have been an easy ask.

AB32 hasn’t been perfect, but it’s helped to lower California’s emissions without negatively impacting its economy. In fact, the economy has grown — gross domestic product in 2015 was up 12.4 percent over 2006 — while petroleum and electricity consumption have both declined.

The state’s climate change battle is also highly popular with voters. In last month’s Public Policy Institute of California poll, 69 percent of Californians supported extending our climate change policies and aiming for the 2030 target.

But instead of responding with the pioneering spirit of their predecessors in the Legislature, current legislators are stuck in neutral.

SB32, authored by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County), was stalled in the Assembly last year, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the oil industry. Pavley revived the bill this year, but its prospects look increasingly dire.

There are just a few weeks left in the legislative session, and SB32 is again at risk in the state Assembly. Pavley has negotiated plenty of compromises on the bill (including dropping a longer-term 2050 goal), but it’s still not enough.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration is furiously trying to work out a deal behind the scenes.

The governor’s sense of urgency is understandable — there are lots of threats to California’s climate change fight right now, including a California Chamber of Commerce lawsuit that’s put the entire cap-and-trade auction program, the centerpiece of AB32, in jeopardy.

But the governor’s office needs to be careful to play the long game here. Doing otherwise could jeopardize the program in less expected, but no less crucial, ways.

Nancy McFadden, Brown’s executive secretary, raised the prospect of a ballot initiative if the Legislature doesn’t move on the governor’s climate change goals. In an Aug. 4 Twitter statement, McFadden said, “The governor will continue working with the Legislature to get this done this year, next year, or on the ballot in 2018.” That same day, Brown’s office filed papers with California’s secretary of state to launch an initiative drive for an as-yet undetailed “Californians for a Clean Environment” measure.

The governor’s temptation to run around an obstinate state Legislature and go directly to the voters is understandable, but it must be avoided.

Achieving climate change goals is a lengthy process with endless moving parts. The legislative process allows the state to adapt as conditions change; ballot measures etch regulations in stone.

With the cap-and-trade auction system in limbo, an inflexible ballot measure could be an especially dangerous solution to a complex problem. State lawmakers need to create certainty by passing SB32 now.

BNSF ad campaign: fining oil train companies illegal, won’t solve future problems

Repost from FoxSpokane.com

BNSF says fining oil train companies won’t solve future problems

By Andrea Olson, August 8, 2016 10:28 pm

There’s a new push from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company to derail the Spokane city council’s proposal to fine train companies for bringing oil or coal trains through the city.

You may have seen the ads from BNSF on Facebook or in the paper showing the company’s petition to block the plan. BNSF just started the campaign last week and they already have hundreds of signatures.

BNSF’s Courtney Wallace says the proposal is illegal and won’t solve future problems.

City council members say they’ve gotten a wave of emails from the petition. Council President Ben Stuckart says if BNSF really thinks the proposal is illegal, the company should challenge it to keep it off the ballot.

Trump energy policy: more fossil fuels, less regulation

Repost from ThinkProgress

Trump ‘Completely Rethinks’ U.S. Energy Policy By Doubling Down On Fossil Fuels

By Ryan Koronowski, August 8, 2016
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers an economic policy speech to the Detroit Economic Club, Monday, Aug. 8, 2016, in Detroit. CREDIT: AP/EVAN VUCCI

On Monday in Detroit, Donald Trump sought to reset his campaign again with a speech about the economy to begin “a great conversation about economic renewal for America,” portraying Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as “a nominee of yesterday.”

Trump aides told Politico prior to the speech that Trump economic vision also involved “a complete rethinking of our energy policy.”

What does this “complete rethinking” look like?

More fossil fuels. And less environmental regulation. A Trump administration would follow the same rhetorical stance on energy as the RNC and the Romney campaign, and the Bush administration’s policy playbook.

The 2016 Republican presidential nominee cited “energy reform” as a priority midway through the speech, attacking “the Obama-Clinton war on coal” and boasting how his own plan to cut regulations on the fossil fuel industry would create jobs.

“I am going to cut regulations massively,” Trump said. “Massively.”

Beyond vague anti-regulatory rhetoric, Trump’s speech cited studies from the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research, the Exxon-funded Heritage Foundation, and the American Petroleum Institute, all purporting to prove the economic ruin wreaked by the Obama administration’s environmental actions.

Further detail was provided by a Trump campaign email sent to the press which outlined “policy highlights” from Trump’s economic vision:

CREDIT: TRUMP CAMPAIGN EMAIL

While Trump may not be able to accomplish all of his stated energy agenda, these policy highlights are essentially the same as the energy plan he outlined in May. His vision lines up almost perfectly with that of the fossil fuel industry.

“Donald Trump’s energy proposals read like a gift registry for the fossil fuel and financial industries,” Greenpeace executive director Annie Leonard said in a statement. “If a U.S. president would attempt to enact any of these proposals it would not only undo the the progress millions of people around the world have achieved on climate change, it would set this country on a path to economic ruin and environmental devastation.”

Trump would “immediately cancel” President Obama’s executive actions, singling out the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule. Trump doesn’t mention that the Climate Action Plan’s carbon rule would lower electricity bills and the Waters of the U.S. rule actually helps protect small farmers against pollution from big agribusiness.

He promises to “save the coal industry” — though international coal market dynamics are to blame and U.S. coal jobs are not coming back even with a President Trump.

Bringing back the Keystone XL pipeline and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf are goals that have been on the conservative drawing board for decades — hardly something that belongs in a completely rethought economic vision.

Cancelling the Paris Climate Agreement and defunding U.S. contributions to United Nations climate programs would drag the United States and the world back decades.

“Lift restrictions on American energy,” to Trump, means fossil fuels and not renewable energy sources like solar and wind, which are growing faster than fossil fuels and getting cheaper at a truly astonishing rate. Trump, however, said last week that renewable energy “is not working so good.”

What the billionaire did not mention on Monday is how much climate change is projected to hurt the global economy: the United States will take a 36 percent GDP hit by the end of the century if its leaders allow it to suffer an unmitigated climate, according to research from ICF International and NextGen Climate Action. Globally, that number jumps to $44 trillion by 2060, according to Citigroup.

Trump called Clinton “the candidate of the past” while his own campaign was “the campaign of the future.”

Letter: Bay Area Air Board needs to step up for cleaner air

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

Where our mayor, supervisor stand

By Michelle Pellegrin, 08/04/16, 4:09 PM PDT

There are 24 people in the Bay Area with the power to regulate the air we breathe. Their decisions cause or reduce asthma, cancer and other illnesses that can and have resulted in death.

This regional board has so much power to affect peoples’ lives and deaths, yet most people haven’t even heard of this agency with the unwieldy name: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District — or BAAQMD.

The 24 members of this board — which includes Vallejo Mayor Osby Davis — have a mandate to protect public health.

The neighborhoods around the refineries have suffered severe health effects from emissions. The 2012 Chevron toxic explosion and fire in Richmond sent more than 15,000 people to the hospital, which is now closed. A broad coalition of Bay Area groups would like to see refinery emissions, which have continuously gone up for the past 20 years, capped and then methods found to reduce harmful emissions. The first step in this process is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

On Wednesday, July 20, after four long years and several refinery incidents, the board, in a room with standing room only, was to vote on this. What appeared as a simple slam dunk became a political football between clean air advocates and Big Oil.

Bay Area refineries have been preparing to process heavier dirtier crudes, which will increase emissions and their diseases. The wave of Crude By Rail (CBR) of proposed projects, such as the Valero Benicia CBR project, are designed to facilitate the importation of extreme crudes, such volatile oil from the Bakken fields and volatile heavy crude from the Canadian Tar Sands.

BAAQMD staff, in what can only be seen as another move to interminably delay implementing modern and necessary emission standards on Bay Area refineries, supported combining the simpler refinery emission cap EIR with a complex EIR on toxic chemical emissions for up to 900 businesses.

Bay Area refinery corridor communities and their allied cities want the EIRs to be conducted separately, as the EIR on refineries can be done much more quickly than the more complex toxic chemical EIR because it requires no infrastructure changes. They want answers and relief from the constant health problems they are suffering.

And here is where our mayor stepped in to show his stripes. Davis, just recently appointed to the board, gave a critical speech supporting combining the two EIRs. Who would have thought the BAAQMD’s newest member would have such sway with the board?

Anyone with respiratory health problems or cancer can give a big round of applause to our mayor and Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering, who made the motion to combine the two EIRs. We in Solano County have the dubious distinction of having the most anti-public health, pro-corporate members on the board.

Even the Contra Costa appointees where four of the five refineries are located weren’t as instrumental as the Solano reps in pushing for the delay of this most important EIR.

Luckily, other board members did uphold their duty to the public’s health and a compromise was reached. The EIRs will be combined but if they become bogged down then they will be separated out. In addition, and a very important one from the public’s point of view, there will be citizen oversight of the process.

The irony here is that this is a false dichotomy. Big Oil will keep functioning and we need them for those cars we drive. These companies provide jobs and add to our economies. But it is no longer legitimate to trade health for jobs. It is an outmoded model and has no place in deciding public policy. It is no longer acceptable for companies to dominate local economies and the policies of the people in those communities where they are located.

Big Oil has known for years that this is the direction things are moving. A 2014 article in the San Jose Mercury News notes the refineries are already working on improving their systems in anticipation of processing the dirtier and volatile oil from outside California.

As Tom Griffith, head of the Martinez Environmental Group back in 2014 stated, “The missed opportunity here is for the oil companies to refocus their sights on the future of renewable energy.”

We should be working together to improve public health. The corporate stranglehold on such important regional boards must end. Citizens need to be attend BAAQMD board meetings and provide input on upcoming board decisions for this to happen. The next meeting is Wednesday, Sept. 21, at 9:30 a.m. at the BAAQMD headquarters at 375 Beale St. San Francisco.

And here in Vallejo we need to do the same and be more engaged. We have seen the result of complicity between politicians and corporations that excluded public input: The absurd notion of putting a cement factory in a residential area with its disastrous public health consequences. Don’t let Mayor Davis and his cronies put our community in harm’s way. Say “no” to the Orcem/VMT cement plant and don’t vote in November for any candidate who supports it!

— Michelle Pellegrin/Vallejo