Tag Archives: Climate change

Canada, Climate Change, First Nation treaty rights, Fossil fuel divestment, Fossil fuels, Public Health, Tar sands crude

Scientists call for end to tar sands mining

Repost from The Guardian
[Editor: This story is also covered (with great photos) in the National Observer, “Over 100 scientists call for oil sands moratorium.”  – RS]

North American scientists call for end to tar sands mining

More than 100 US and Canadian scientists publish letter saying tar sands crude should be relegated to fuel of last resort, because it causes so much pollution
By Suzanne Goldenberg, 10 June 2015 13.14 EDT 
The Syncrude tar sand site near to Fort McMurray in Northern Alberta, Canada
The Syncrude tar sand site near to Fort McMurray in Northern Alberta, Canada | Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

More than 100 leading US and Canadian scientists called for a halt on future mining of the tar sands, saying extraction of the carbon-heavy fuel was incompatible with fighting climate change.

In a letter published on Wednesday, the researchers said tar sands crude should be relegated to a fuel of last resort, because it causes so much more carbon pollution than conventional oil.

The letter, released two days after G7 countries committed to get off fossil fuels by the end of the century, added to growing international pressure on the Canadian government, which has championed the tar sands and is failing to meet its earlier climate goals.

“If Canada wants to participate constructively in the global effort to stop climate change, we should first stop expanding the oil sands. More growth simply shows Canada has gone rogue,” Thomas Homer-Dixon, professor of governance innovation at the University of Waterloo, said in a statement.

The researchers included a Nobel prize winner, five holders of Canada’s highest national honour, and 34 researchers honoured by Canadian and US scientific societies.

The researchers said it was the first time that scientists had come out as professionals in opposition to the tar sands. The letter offered 10 reasons for the moratorium call, ranging from extraction’s impact on local First Nations communities to destruction of boreal forests and climate change, and argued that foregoing tar sands production would not hurt the economy.

They said they hoped to present those findings to Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, who has lobbied hard in Washington and European capitals for the tar sands.

“We offer a unified voice calling for a moratorium on new oil sands projects,” the scientists said in the letter.

“No new oil sands or related infrastructure projects should proceed unless consistent with an implemented plan to rapidly reduce carbon pollution, safeguard biodiversity, protect human health, and respect treaty rights.”

They said the decisions made by Canada and the US would set an important example for the international community, when it comes to fighting climate change. “The choices we make about the oil sands will reverberate globally, as other countries decide whether or how to develop their own large unconventional oil deposits,” the scientists said.

Since 2000, Canada has doubled tar sands production, and Harper has lobbied Barack Obama to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would open up new routes to market for Alberta oil.

The crash of oil prices will likely put some future projects on hold, but are unlikely to affect current production, analysts said.

The organisers of the letter said all future projects should be shelved unless Canada put in place safeguards to protect local people and environment and prevent climate change.

“The oil sands should be one of the first fuels we decide not to develop because of its carbon intensity,” said Thomas Sisk, professor of environmental science at Northern Arizona University, and one of the organisers of the letter.

“It is among the highest emitting fuels in terms of greenhouse gas emissions … If we are trying to address the climate crisis this high carbon intensive fuel should be among the first we forego as we move to an economy based around cleaner fuels.”

Researchers including Sisk first outlined reasons for opposition to the tar sands in Nature last year.

Wednesday’s intervention deepens an emerging political and economic distinction around coal and tar sands among climate campaigners.

As a fossil fuel divestment movement moves from college campuses to financial institutions, a number of prominent supporters, such as Rockefeller Brothers Fund, moved swiftly to ditch coal and tar sands holdings, but plan more gradual moves away from oil and gas.

Scientists agree that two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves will need to stay in the ground to avoid warming above 2C, the internationally agreed threshold on catastrophic climate change.

The Guardian supports the fossil fuel divestment campaign, and has called on two of the world’s largest health charities, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, to rid its holdings of coal, oil, and gas.

Air Quality, Carbon pricing systems, Climate Change, Oil producers, United Nations

Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Big Oil Companies Asking For A Price On Carbon

Repost from ClimateProgress

Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Big Oil Companies Asking For A Price On Carbon

By Emily Atkin, June 3, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Shell, Statoil, Total, and BP were four of six companies to request a price on carbon be included in international policy frameworks. Six large European oil and gas companies are asking governments across the world to charge them for the carbon dioxide they emit.

In a letter released Monday, Shell, BP, Total, Statoil, Eni, and the BG Group told the chief of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that a price on carbon “should be a key element” of an international agreement to address global climate change. The letter came while U.N. negotiators met in Bonn, Germany to work towards that agreement.

For those who want to fight climate change, this is good news. But it’s not totally unprecedented. Other high-emitting companies, including Shell, have expressed support for a carbon price before. And big oil companies have been expecting some sort of carbon price for a long time — the biggest ones have already incorporated it into their business plans. Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell; they’re all financially prepared for a carbon price if and when it comes their way.

That more and more oil companies are now actively calling for a carbon price, though, is good for the climate fight. Total, BP, Statoil, and Royal Dutch Shell are all among the 90 companies causing the vast majority of global warming via their exorbitant carbon emissions. Now, they’re acknowledging they want to at least pay for some of those emissions, and that seems like a positive development.

At the same time, it’s not like any of those six companies are halting their plans to drill. They haven’t recognized the science that says two-thirds of all proven fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to avoid catastrophic warming. Shell is still planning to explore for oil in the Arctic; BP just recently expanded its operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

More importantly, though — at least in terms of getting a carbon price in the final U.N. climate deal — the European companies that signed the letter wield little power within the U.S. Congress compared to other big oil companies. This matters because the terms of that deal will almost certainly have to be approved by Congress if it is to include an enforceable price on carbon. Under U.S. law, any international agreement that binds or prohibits the United States from actions not otherwise mandated by law must be ratified by Congress.

BP, Statoil, and Total might be actively calling for a carbon tax, but the three biggest U.S. oil companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips — aren’t. (ExxonMobil says they would prefer a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system, but they don’t outright support it). And those U.S. companies are spending much more to influence Congress than the letter-writing companies on campaign donations and lobbying.

Contributions include donations from company employees, PACs, and soft money contributions.
Contributions include donations from company employees, PACs, and soft money contributions. CREDIT: Patrick Smith

To be fair, European companies have more restrictions on how much they can give than U.S.-based companies do. But not only are the biggest U.S. companies spending far more to influence U.S. politics, their money is going to politicians who are actively fighting efforts to price carbon in the United States.

During the 2014 election, for example, the biggest receiver of funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips was former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Landrieu marketed herself, among other things, as the “key vote” that made sure a carbon pricing system wasn’t implemented by Congress in 2010. Other candidates supported by those three companies were John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mark Begich, John Cornyn — all have said they oppose a price on carbon.

In fact, the Republican party as a whole in the United States is opposed to policies that price carbon. Though it says nothing about a carbon tax, the last official Republican party platform touts opposition to “any and all cap-and-trade legislation.” Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of all oil company campaign contributions is going to Republicans.

oillobby (1)
Oil Lobby CREDIT: Patrick Smith

There are other reasons to be skeptical of any big oil company fighting for a price on carbon. For one, some companies have said they would support a carbon tax, but only if they can avoid other climate-related regulations. As David Roberts pointed out for Grist back in 2012, “the fossil fuel lobby would never give a carbon tax their OK unless EPA regulations on carbon (and possibly other pollution regs) were scrapped.” It’s also reasonable to assume that oil companies see profits increasing in the markets for low-carbon natural gas while the high-emitting coal industry tanks, and realize that coal would be hurt far worse by the policy.

In other words, it is great that some of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change want to be charged for the carbon they emit. But we still have a long way to go before big oil actually joins the fight.

Air Quality, California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), California Regulation, Climate Change, Greenhouse gas emissions

California Senate passes climate change bills

Repost from the San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate

State lawmakers pass bills combatting climate change

By Melody Gutierrez, 4:11 pm, Wednesday, June 3, 2015

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers passed ambitious proposals Wednesday aimed at reaffirming California’s commitment to combatting global warming.

The bills, which still need to be voted on by the full Legislature, would translate into law the framework set by Gov. Jerry Brown in his inaugural speech in January and in an executive order in April that called for lowering the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The 2030 target expands on the landmark AB32 California Global Warming Solutions Act adopted by the Legislature in 2006, which made the state a world leader in fighting climate change by calling for carbon emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The state is on track to meet the goals set in that law.

Both houses of the Legislature approved a handful of climate-change bills Wednesday. One bill approved by the Senate was B350, by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that sets 2030 as the deadline for three big environmental feats: cutting petroleum use in half by reducing driving and increasing the use of fuel-efficient cars; boosting energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent; and requiring the state to get half of its electricity from renewable sources.

The Senate approved SB350 in a 24-14 vote Wednesday. The bill now heads to the state Assembly.

De Leon said the bill would ensure that California continues to build “the new economy of tomorrow.”

“Let’s get it done. Let’s continue to lead the world,” de Leon said.

The Senate also approved SB185 by de Leon, which calls for the nation’s two largest state pension systems — California’s public employee and teacher retirement systems — to divest from thermal coal. The bill passed 22-14 and heads to the Assembly.

“We’ve already proven we can lower utility bills and rebuild our energy infrastructure, all the while cleaning up the air we breathe into our lungs and reducing our contribution to climate change,” de Leon said.

Many Republicans spoke against the climate-change bills, saying they will increase utility bills for consumers and businesses, and cost working-class jobs.

“We have a very lofty and noble goal, but other than feeling good about it, what has it actually accomplished?” asked Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

California Senate approves legislation to combat global warming

By Jessica Calefati, Bay Area News Group, 06/04/15, 7:00 AM PDT

SACRAMENTO ­­>> The state Senate on Wednesday approved a far-reaching array of bills designed to cement the Golden State’s reputation as an international leader in the fight against climate change.

If enacted, the legislation will trigger a fundamental shift in the kinds of cars and trucks Californians drive and the way they power their homes. New targets would force industries to create more renewable energy, make more vehicles that don’t burn gasoline and further slash greenhouse gas emissions.

Democrats roundly praised the bills, which were inspired by goals Gov. Jerry Brown outlined in his inaugural address. They said the legislation is needed to help the environment and create jobs.

“We’re talking about creating a new economy for tomorrow,” Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon said.

But Republicans railed against the legislation on the Senate floor. They called it “coastal elitism at its worst” and insisted the proposals would hurt the Central Valley, the region hit hardest by the Great Recession and the devastating four-year drought.

Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula, seethed as he told his Democratic colleagues that Senate Bill 350 would “kill thousands of blue and white collar jobs in the Central Valley.” Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, pleaded with her Democratic colleagues to vote no. “I beg you,” she said.

But Democrats refused to budge. “Markets change. We transform. That’s who we are,” said Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. “Welcome to America, baby!”

Many energy experts say Californians won’t know the true impact of the legislation on their daily lives for many years because the formula needed to achieve these ambitious goals — and the cost of such bold change for taxpayers and business owners — remains murky.

“I’m quite dubious about our ability to accomplish these goals we’re getting so many kudos for setting,” said James Sweeney, director of Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center.

“It’s going to be up to future governors and future lawmakers to make these goals work,” Sweeney said. “Unless we come up with a plan that’s not terribly disruptive to average Californians’ lives, they’re never going to follow through.”

If the legislation becomes law, it will be up to the California Air Resources Control Board to implement two of the measures’ toughest goals: cutting petroleum use by cars and trucks in half over the next 15 years and slashing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next 35 years.

To achieve the first goal, the board has suggested getting Californians to drive less by using more mass transit, dramatically increasing the fuel economy of cars and doubling the use of alternative fuels. But the board has publicized few additional details about how to get there — and that omission makes the legislation impossible to support, opponents say.

“Most of California’s businesses and families rely on petroleum for their day-to-day transportation needs and (the legislation) has the ability to compromise the availability of transportation fuels,” the California Chamber of Commerce wrote last month to lawmakers.

An oil industry trade group said it’s hoping for better luck and a different outcome when the measure is considered by the state Assembly.

“We will continue to educate consumers and businesses on the enormous negative impact the legislation will have on all Californians and hope members of the Assembly are more willing to take a critical look at this legislation than did their counterparts in the Senate,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association.

Along with the dramatic reduction of petroleum in gasoline it requires, Senate Bill 350, sponsored by de Leon, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would also require California utilities to generate at least 50 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable energy sources by 2030 and require state agencies to toughen building standards.

The Senate approved the measure on a 24-14 vote, with all Republicans voting no.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer was one among many environmental advocates who praised the Senate’s action on the climate package as a “bold step forward” that tackles climate change “head on.”

“We owe it to our kids and our grandkids to protect them, and that means addressing climate change before it’s too late,” Steyer said in a statement.

The Senate’s endorsement of the legislation comes several weeks after Brown signed an agreement between California and 11 other U.S. states and foreign provinces to sharply limit emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

That same commitment is the backbone of Senate Bill 32, sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, which would extend California’s landmark climate law, signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. The new bill — which passed the Senate 22-15 —would lock into law a goal that Schwarzenegger had set: cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by midcentury.

Other pieces of legislation the Senate approved Wednesday would establish a committee to advise the Legislature on climate policies that could create jobs; require that California’s pension funds for teachers and state workers divest from coal companies; and spur farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California may not know precisely how it will achieve these goals, but UC Berkeley energy expert Dan Kammen said he isn’t worried. He expects the Golden State’s brightest minds to create new technologies to cover any ground we can’t with today’s tools.

“These are decades-long goals,” Kammen said. “The way to get there is to have a strategy that we know we must update and modify as we innovate.”

Air Quality, California Regulation, Climate Change, Greenhouse gas emissions

California State Senate vote on climate change, June 3

Press Release from NextGenClimate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tuesday, June 2, 2015
CONTACT: NGC Press Office, 415-802-2423
or press@nextgenclimate.org 

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE’S OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO LEAD ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Tomorrow, the California State Senate has a chance to decisively move our state towards a clean energy future and reduce carbon pollution.

The Senate is scheduled to vote tomorrow on SB 32 and SB 350—bills introduced by Senator Fran Pavley and Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León respectively—that take ambitious steps to ensure that California continues to lead the nation when it comes to addressing climate change. Based on the framework laid out by Governor Jerry Brown, this commonsense legislation would reduce carbon pollution by 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050 and would reduce fossil fuel use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, ensure that 50 percent of California’s electricity comes from renewable sources and increase energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent—all  by 2030.

“This commonsense legislation will increase our use of clean energy sources like wind and solar, reduce carbon pollution, and create good-paying jobs,” said NextGen Climate spokesperson Suzanne Henkels.

Under California’s landmark climate legislation, our economy continues to make progress while reducing carbon pollution to protect our children’s future. More than 430,000 people are employed by an advanced energy business in California—that’s more than in the motion picture, television, and radio industries combined—and these jobs are projected to grow by 17 percent this year.

With tomorrow’s vote, the Senate is on the verge of taking this record of success to the next level. We’re confident they’ll continue California’s long history of leadership in solving climate change and accelerate the transition to the advanced energy economy that our kids deserve.

# # #

NextGen Climate

NextGen Climate is focused on bringing climate change to the forefront of American politics. Founded by investor and philanthropist Tom Steyer in 2013, NextGen Climate acts politically to prevent climate disaster and promote prosperity for all Americans.