Trevor Robb, QMI Agency, March 22, 2015 8:41:21 EDT PM
EDMONTON — The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) says 20 cars carrying potash derailed just north of Wetaskiwin, Alta., around 9:09 a.m. Sunday near Highway 13.
Pictures from the scene show piles of potash, which is mostly used in fertilizers, spilling onto the ground.
2. Near Denver: 27 coal cars jump tracks in train derailment; no injuries
Raquel Villanueva, KUSA 5:49 p.m. MDT March 22, 2015
At least 27 freight cars derailed and lost their cargo in Hudson on Sunday. (Photo by 7NEWS, via Heidi Schreiner Gotto)
HUDSON, Colo. (AP) — A train jumped its tracks early Sunday, dumping tons of coal from more than two dozen cars near the northern Colorado town of Hudson.
No injuries were reported, but there was significant damage to the tracks, which have been shut down for repairs and cleanup…. [MORE]
Repost from GreenBiz [Editor: See also ABC News: Fossil Fuel Divestment Effort Comes to Energy-Rich Colorado – “A campaign to get universities to stop investing in greenhouse gas-producing fuels came deep into energy country Friday as activists asked the University of Colorado to divest from coal and petroleum companies.” – RS]
Investor Q&A: Why the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is divesting from fossil fuels
IFC SUSTAIN Magazine, Thursday, February 26, 2015 – 2:00am
Here’s why a foundation built upon oil is pulling its funds from fossil fuels. Shutterstock/
Rockefeller and oil go together like Starbucks and coffee.
So it took most people by surprise when the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) announced in September that it would divest from fossil fuels and invest in cleaner alternatives.
In a recent Q&A, Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz explained what led to the decision, how the foundation is restructuring its investments and how he expects others to react.
Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
IFC SUSTAIN: Can you explain what led to your decision to divest from fossil fuels?
Stephen Heintz: Combatting climate change with grant dollars alone is no longer sufficient.
Since 2010, the RBF has been working to invest a portion of our endowment (10 percent) in companies that are advancing sustainable practices and clean energy technologies. During Climate Week in September, we announced that the RBF has launched a two-step process of fossil fuel divestment.
IFC SUSTAIN: Can you describe how you are divesting?
Heintz: Our first step was to exit from investments in coal and tar sands oil, two of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels. The second step of our process has been to undertake a detailed analysis of our remaining fossil fuel exposure (oil and gas) and to develop a plan for further divestment.
We are working to balance our deep concern over fossil fuels with the Fund’s longstanding mandate that our assets be invested with the goal of achieving financial returns that will maintain the purchasing power of our endowment, so that future generations will also benefit from the foundation’s charitable giving.
IFC SUSTAIN: Do you think other investors will follow your lead?
Heintz: Yes, we are very confident others will join this effort. Globally, we need greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 80 percent by 2050. We can only get there by leaving the bulk of coal, oil and gasin the ground and by transitioning to clean energy without delay.
Yet the stock price of a fossil fuel company is linked to its reserves. These are stranded and unburnable assets whose economic value is diminished — a reality that investors now understand and are starting to consider in their investment decisions.
Clear evidence of the increasing number of investors recognizing the urgency of this issue and acting on it can be seen in the growing numbers of institutions and individuals who have signed onto the Divest/Invest Philanthropy pledge.
IFC SUSTAIN: How do you think this pressure from investors will affect extractive companies?
Heintz: The pressure from this movement of investors is, we feel, adding weight to the critical conversation about policy — national, international and corporate — on addressing climate change with an urgency that is proportionate to the challenge.
Capital market and regulatory conditions are uniquely material to the viability of extractive businesses. Investor pressure on companies is a part of a larger discussion that will increasingly influence commodity prices, the cost of capital, and global regulatory agendas, which will have an impact on the operations of these companies.
By putting our money where our mouth is, we have been part of an effort that has taken the question of stranded assets from a hypothesis of activists to a mainstream consideration within capital markets and even central banks (see, for example, recent Bank of England statement).
IFC SUSTAIN: What specific changes can extractive companies reasonably make to address climate change and continue to attract investors?
Heintz: Concretely, companies can look at how to be good stewards of shareholder capital and commit to a candid assessment of how to best use their resources. Borrowing to invest in long-term risky projects that require $140 per barrel of oil to break even is difficult to justify.
Responsive companies will focus on returning capital to shareholders instead and migrate from a growth-at-all-costs (regardless of future profits) mindset. Extractive companies can begin to redeploy CAPEX from searching for more reserves to diversifying their businesses by investing more aggressively in renewable energy.
IFC SUSTAIN: Looking into the future, how do you think your energy investment portfolio will evolve?
Heintz: The window of opportunity to avoid catastrophic climate change narrows with each day.
Clean energy technologies and other business strategies that advance energy efficiency, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the effects of climate change are the way forward. Our investments in these sectors will continue to grow as more and more economically attractive opportunities open up.
This article first appeared at SUSTAIN, a magazine produced by the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group.
The War On Solar Is Real, Unlike the “War on Coal”
By Mike Gaworecki, 2015-02-05
You’ve most likely heard of the so-called “war on coal,” especially given how eagerly mainstream newspapers have helped conservatives in pushing this bogus meme. But there’s another war going on, one you probably haven’t heard of even though the outcome has major implications for the future of our planet.
That would be the “war on solar,” a concerted effort by vested fossil fuel interests and their political allies to hinder the progress of solar power, and more broadly attack all efforts to convert our society to run on clean, renewable energy sources.
Solar is a fast-growing clean energy industry that now employs 174,000 people, more than the coal industry. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the U.S. now has more than 20 gigawatts (GW) of installed solar capacity, enough to power four million American homes while contributing more than $15 billion to the American economy.
The aggressors in the war on the solar industry include some familiar names: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Tax Reform and the Koch Brothers’ own Americans for Prosperity, organizations that are intent on rolling back policies — including the solar investment tax credit — designed to encourage solar energy development. These front groups for fossil fuel interests are determined to restrict the growth of the clean tech industries in favor of the dirty energy interests they’re beholden to for funding.
The goal of the war on solar, of course, is to kill a budding industry before it can get its legs. Much of its strategy is in a state-by-state campaign [that] employs two tactics: reducing state-government commitments to the percentage of energy acquired from renewables and repealing “net-metering” laws that fairly compensate homeowners and businesses for the solar energy they produce.
Net metering policies have been adopted in over 40 states and more than half a million homes and businesses in the U.S. have installed rooftop solar systems to generate their own energy. That pursuit of real energy independence rightfully scares the hell out of utility operators who, after years of fighting distributed solar, have resorted to trying to co-opt the business model instead.
Coal, meanwhile, is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector even though it fuels just 39% of electricity generation in the U.S.
A future in which we have averted runaway global warming is a future without coal and with way more solar, yet mentions of the phrase “war on coal” dwarf those of “war on solar” in the media, as Cates points out with this graphic:
“Judging by press coverage both mainstream and marginal, there’s one epic fight—and pretty much one epic fight only—going on in America’s utility-energy industry: The ‘war on coal,’” Cates writes.
He adds: “The stakes in the war on solar are not insignificant.”
Indeed, when it comes to solar versus coal and the future of how we power our society, we are fighting for our very lives.
Repost from Shale Plays Media [Editor: Significant quote: “In the last five years, 99 trains have derailed in Alberta alone, and Canada has collectively seen over 400 in the same period.” See chart below with details for all Canadian provinces. – RS]
Train derailment near Banff spills coal ash into creek
Marissa Hall | Shale Plays Media, December 31, 2014
Photo: Mary Schimke/Shale Plays Media
A train derailed in Canada over the holiday weekend, pushing seven rail cars into a nearby creek. Although there was no volatile cargo to cause a flashback to Lac-Megantic, the train was carrying coal ash, which was spilled into the surrounding area.
The Canadian Pacific train derailed on December 26 at about 2 a.m. in Alberta near Banff National Park. A total of fifteen cars exited the track, seven of which were pushed into nearby 40 Mile Creek. Six cars were carrying fly ash, which is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants and an ingredient in cement. The train was also carrying lentils. Both the fly ash and the Mediterranean grain were spilled into 40 Mile Creek.
BreakngVancouverNews, @iVancouverNews Ash spilled in train derailment could harm fish in Banff creek http://bit.ly/173sTTZ #Vancouver #BC #News
Repair efforts for the track are already underway, as well as an investigation by the Transportation Safety Board. Officials are unsure what caused the derailment, and workers were quick to the scene in attempts to minimalize its environmental impact. After the spill, workers observed that the creek, which is usually clear, was ruddy and brown. Although officials have stated that the stream is currently unharmed by the spill, ThinkProgress reports that it could be more impactful than it seems.
The creek is downstream of Banff’s Bow River, but so far, officials say the spill isn’t affecting the river. However, the fly ash could ultimately alter the pH of the water and can create piles of sediment in the creek. It could also threaten the health of the creek’s fish, according to University of Alberta ecology professor David Schindler, because of the traces of metals it contains.
Environmentalists are concerned that these sediments could interfere with spawning habitats, even though the substance isn’t classified as dangerous under Canada’s Dangerous Goods Act. According to CBC News, large amounts of sediment in the water could prevent fish eggs from getting the proper amount of oxygen and the creek bed.
The lentils could also have a negative impact on the region. According to the Calgary Herald, the grain could draw bears into an unsafe territory. However, because most bears are in hibernation this time of year, experts say the immediate risk is minimal. The bigger concern is cleaning the lentils up before the bears in the area come out of hibernation to ensure it doesn’t draw them into danger.
The derailment has raised the already heightened concern that transporting certain goods by rail is dangerous. Rail is the primary means of transporting crude oil when pipelines are unavailable, and everyone fears more catastrophes like the explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed some 30 people, and the disaster in Casselton, North Dakota, which brought the dangers of oil-by-rail close to home for many in the state. In the last five years, 99 trains have derailed in Alberta alone, and Canada has collectively seen over 400 in the same period. Across North America, citizens hope to avoid another calamity while officials work to come up with a viable solution.
