Category Archives: Climate Change

DOT Ignores Congress’ Deadline for Upgrading Safety Rules to Prevent Oil Train Disasters

News Release from Center For Biological Diversity
[Editor: see this story also in INFORUM (Fargo ND), which shows an interesting photo of a cross section from a damaged oil tanker car.  – RS]

Department of Transportation Ignores Congressional Deadline for Upgrading Safety Rules to Prevent Oil Train Disasters

PORTLAND, Ore.— Ignoring a congressional stipulation in the 2015 budget bill calling for new safety rules for oil trains by Jan. 15, federal transportation officials now say they won’t update the rules until May. Amid mounting concerns over the unchecked rise in shipments of highly volatile crude oil by train that has resulted in several explosive derailments and dozens of fatalities in the past two years, the federal Department of Transportation has yet to enact any on-the-ground safety improvements.

“Every day of delay is another day of putting people and the environment at risk of great harm,” said Jared Margolis, an attorney at the Center who focuses on the impacts of energy development on endangered species. “Continuing to allow these bomb trains to operate under current regulations is simply rolling the dice as to where and when the next disaster will occur.”

While several explosive oil-train accidents have occurred since the rulemaking process began in September 2013, the agency has failed to take any immediate action to resolve well-established concerns, such as the use of unsafe, puncture-prone DOT-111 tank cars.

“DOT-111 tank cars were never intended to transport these hazardous products,” said Margolis. “Failing to ban them immediately is a failure of the government’s duty to protect us from harm.”

Congress, understanding that rapid action is essential to protect the public, put a requirement in the 2015 budget bill for federal transportation officials to issue new safety rules by Jan. 15; but the industry has been fighting to delay and chip away at any efforts that would make moving oil by rail more expensive, regardless of safety concerns.

“Bomb trains are just one of many dangers posed by our continued dependence on fossil fuels,” Margolis said. “Ultimately, if we’re going to avoid dangerous oil-train derailments, as well as avoid the climate catastrophe that is currently being caused by our emissions, we must move away from these dangerous fossil fuels.”

– – – –

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 800,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Contra Costa Times Guest commentary: Say no to toxic oil trains for the future of our children

Repost from The Contra Costa Times

Guest commentary: Say no to toxic oil trains for the future of our children

By Carolyn Norr, 01/12/2015

I haven’t met Greg Garland, CEO of Phillips 66. I don’t know if he has kids, and if he does, I don’t know what he tells them about the world. But I know he has a plan, one I’m not sure how to explain to my own children, to ship tar sands crude oil by rail through my town.

As a mom, this is in no way OK with me. These oil trains spill poisons, leak toxins into the air, and contribute to the climate chaos my kids will be dealing with their entire lives.

In June, the Oakland City Council took an admirable stand against oil trains coming through our city. But now Phillips 66 proposes an expansion of its facility 250 miles south of here, that would bring a mile-long toxic train every day past our homes and schools.

It’s up to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors to decide whether to allow that. Supervisors will be voting in early 2015. So now, I’m inviting any concerned parent, along with the City Council, to speak and urge them to protect our families by rejecting Garland’s plan.

Phillips’s latest environmental review admits that the proposed facility would create “significant and unavoidable” levels of air pollution, with increased health risks — particularly for children — of cancer, heart disease, asthma and more. Oakland already has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country.

Garland must not be one of the growing number of people who watch our kids deal with this, or he might reconsider.

Meanwhile, across the U.S. and Canada, oil train derailments, spills and fires are increasing as Garland and his colleagues in big oil move more oil by rail. The tar sands crude Phillips would be moving through our city is particularly toxic: the same carcinogenic, impossible-to-clean-up stuff of the infamous Keystone XL pipeline.

In Oakland, the potential spill zone includes much of downtown and the flatlands, where kids are already dealing with more than their fair share of dangers.

Besides, tar sands oil creates particularly huge amounts of the global warming gasses that are driving the climate into chaos.

What we burn now, our kids will be dealing with their entire lives. Scientists agree that a global temperature rise of 3.6 degrees may well be inevitable, and with it a level of droughts, super storms, forest fires and famines beyond anything we’ve seen.

Now we are fighting against the real possibility the temperature could increase twice that, making my kids’ very survival uncertain. As a mom, it’s crazy for me to know that. And when I hear about plans to deny or ignore those facts, I have to say no.

I don’t know Greg Garland personally. I don’t know if every night he tucks in his kids and tell them they are safe. But that is what I do, and I don’t mean my reassuring words to be hollow.

I invite the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors, my City Council, and everyone who cares about the safety and future of families in California, to join me in doing everything in our power to stop this plan. No to the expansion of Phillips 66, no to oil trains in our communities.

Carolyn Norr is a resident of Oakland. To get more involved, email momsagainstfossilfuels@gmail.com or contact Forest Ethics.

Columbia University study: the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050

Repost from The Earth Institute, Columbia University

New Report Shows How U.S. Can Slash Greenhouse Emissions

Researchers Map Low-Carbon Investments and Policy Changes
2014-11-20

A new report shows how the United States can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, using existing or near-commercial technologies. The 80 percent reduction by 2050 (“80 by 50”) is a long-standing goal of the Obama administration, in line with the global commitment to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.  The new report, issued by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP), comes on the heels of the historic climate agreement last week between the United States and China, in which the U.S. government reiterated the 80 by 50 goal.

“This US Deep Decarbonization Pathways Report shows that an 80 percent reduction of emissions by 2050 is fully feasible, and indeed can be achieved with many alternative approaches. This reports shows how to do it,” said Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.  “I believe that the report provides a solid basis for negotiating a strong climate treaty in Paris in December 2015.“

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and San Francisco-based consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) authored the report as part of the DDPP.  The DDPP is led by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations.

“This report shows it is feasible to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2050 without requiring early retirement of infrastructure,” said Jim Williams, chief scientist at E3 and lead author on the report. “Moreover, the economic assumptions in this analysis were intentionally conservative, and the results demonstrate that even then deep decarbonization is not prohibitively expensive.”

The study analyzed four different low-carbon scenarios covering different energy saving measures, fuel switching, and four types of decarbonized electricity: renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuel with carbon capture and storage, and a mixed case. The scenarios achieved reductions of 83% below 2005 levels, and 80% below 1990 levels.

“All four scenarios we tested assumed economic growth,” said Margaret Torn, senior scientist and co-head of the Climate and Carbon Sciences Program at Berkeley Lab, faculty in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley, and coauthor of the DDPP report. “All of our scenarios deliver the energy services that strong economic growth demands.”

The report finds that the net costs would be on the order of 1% of gross domestic product per year. But the report said that included a wide uncertainty range, from -0.2% to +1.8% of a forecast GDP of $40 trillion, due to uncertainty about consumption levels, technology costs and fossil fuel prices nearly 40 years into the future. The researchers assumed lifestyles similar to those today, and extrapolated technology costs based on present expectations.

“If you bet on America’s ability to develop and commercialize new technologies, then the net cost of transforming the energy system could be very low, even negative, when you take fuel savings into account,” said Williams. “And that is not counting the potential economic benefits of a low-carbon energy system for climate change and public health.”

The report suggests that a multifaceted technology approach is needed to meet the greenhouse gas reduction target. Buildings, transportation and industry need to increase energy efficiency. This includes building structures with smart materials and energy-efficient designs, and fueling vehicles with electricity generated from sources including wind, solar, or nuclear, as opposed to coal.

“One important conclusion is that investment opportunities in clean technologies will arise during the natural rollover and replacement of infrastructure,” said Williams. “The plan calls for non-disruptive, sustained infrastructure transitions that can deeply decarbonize the U.S. by 2050, and enhance its competitive position in the process.”

The U.S. DDPP Report is one of 15 DDPP country studies that are part of the global project. It aims to show practical pathways to deep decarbonization consistent with the globally agreed 2-degree Celsius upper limit on warming to reduce the likelihood of dangerous climate change.

Latest Benicia DEIR comments: Center For Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council

On December 16, the City of Benicia released yet another document highly critical of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Draft EIR.  The massive report was submitted for the record on December 5 by the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council.  The document focuses on biological resources and climate change.  Many thanks to our friends in these excellent organizations!

The summary page follows:

CBD-CBE-NRDC_lttrhdDecember 5, 2014

Amy Million, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
250 East L Street
Benicia, CA 94510
amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us

Re: The City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project

Dear Ms. Million,

On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council, we submit the following comments on the City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project (Project). The Project, if approved, would allow the Valero refinery to receive up to 70,000 barrels per day of crude oil by train, which equates to a potential for 1.07 billion gallons of crude oil imported by train each year.

These comments supplement prior comment letters by detailing the significant deficiencies in the DEIR’s assessment of impacts to Biological Resources in Section 4.2. Specifically the DEIR (1) fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to biological resources at the Project area; (2) fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts along the rail lines serving the Project; (3) fails to properly analyze the cumulative impacts of increased crude oil shipments on biological resources; and (4) fails to adequately evaluate impacts related to climate change.

Because this Project would result in significant impacts to biological resources, the City cannot certify the DEIR before adopting all feasible mitigation measures. At present, the DEIR fails to identify and analyze mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s impacts.

However, there are numerous mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce the impacts of the Project. These measures must be analyzed in the DEIR, so that the full range of options are publicly disclosed and considered by decision‐makers.

[Editor: The document continues … Note that the “Public Comment” link below goes to a huge 584-page document on the City’s website, a 24mb download.  WordPress will not allow an upload of this magnitude here on The Benicia Independent.  The bulk of the document (570 pages) is supplemental studies, all important, but for the heart of the document, see the 14-page Comment Letter minus the supplements.  – RS)

Public Comments October 17-December 15, 2014  (A single comment letter, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council.)