Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 100

General Mills Takes Climate Change Seriously Because You Can’t Make Wheaties Without Wheat

On Monday, General Mills — the sixth-largest food company in the world — announced plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by 2025.

The announcement comes at a time when a growing number of major food companies are pledging to take more steps to encourage sustainability throughout their businesses. But General Mills’ plan is slightly unique, because it seeks to reduce carbon emissions throughout the company’s entire supply chain, from farm to landfill — a first for major food companies.

“Climate plays a significant role in the long-term viability of our business,” Jerry Lynch, vice president and chief sustainability officer at General Mills, said in an interview posted to the company’s official blog Monday. “As a global food company, we recognize the need to mitigate the risks climate change present to humanity, our environment and our livelihoods long term.”

Lynch called the decision to aim for a 28 percent reduction by 2025 “science-based,” taking into account what climate science says must be done to avoid the worst impacts from climate change. Post-2025, Lynch said, the company will work to reduce emissions by 50 to 70 percent — a goal that’s in line with what’s necessary to keep the world under 2°C of global warming, something that would threaten the company’s ability to reliable source crops and produce food.

“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us,” General Mills’ CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press in an interview ahead of the company’s official announcement. “Obviously we depend on that for our business, and we all depend on that for the food we eat.”

Within its own operations, General Mills announced it would invest more than $100 million towards clean energy and energy efficiency, in its manufacturing plants and throughout its transportation system. General Mills will also work to reduce emissions within its operations by using less cardboard and plastic in its packaging. The company has been working to curb its own greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, and has managed to decrease levels over the past decade by 13 percent.

But it also acknowledged that much of the greenhouse gas emissions related to its supply chain comes from places outside of its factories — from the farms where its raw materials are sourced. In 2013, General Mills committed to sourcing its 10 priority ingredients from sustainable sources by 2020. Under its new climate plan, the company promised to source products from an additional 250,000 acres of organic production by 2020.

John Church, the company’s senior vice president of global supply chain, told Minnesota Public Radio that the company’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, from an ingredient perspective, is milk. “In that supply chain,” he said, “it’s because the cows themselves create methane in their digestive process.” Church said that General Mills plans on working with dairy farmers to better manage methane from dairy production.

Lynch said on the company’s blog that the decision was made to announce the climate plans in advance of the United Nations Paris Climate Conference, which will take place this December. In a press release announcing the plan, Powell echoed Lynch’s hope of a move toward smarter climate policies by other food companies and producers.

“While our success depends on our actions, we cannot get there on our own,” Powell said. “We believe every company, government and individual has a role to play. Climate change is a shared, global challenge that is best addressed at scale.”

Earlier this summer, both Wal-Mart and Unilever announced programs aimed at curbing their greenhouse gas emissions. Unilever committed to sourcing 100 percent of its soy from farms that use practices to curb pollution by 2017, and would do the same for the rest of its raw agriculture commodities by 2020. Wal-Mart announced a new program that may curb greenhouse gas emissions by 11 million metric tons by 2020, the same as taking 2.3 million passenger vehicles off the road for an entire year.

At this years’ National Food Policy Conference, held in April, David Festa, head of the Environmental Defense Fund’s West Coast operations, spoke about the growing trend of food companies taking initiative to shape food policy, especially in terms of improving sustainability. He highlighted recent commitments by companies like Wal-Mart and Unilever as an example of the progress that can occur when companies use their economic power to exert pressure on the supply chain.

“Given the state of our planet we dont have a moment to lose,” Festa said. “This is the perfect moment for the private sector to lead.”

Tags

Climate ChangeFood

The post General Mills Takes Climate Change Seriously Because You Can’t Make Wheaties Without Wheat appeared first on ThinkProgress.

To Honor Native Americans, Obama Renamed The Nation’s Highest Mountain. These People Are Upset.

On Sunday, President Obama announced that he would , currently called Mount McKinley, to Denali. The move, which comes in advance of the President’s trip to Alaska, was described as a show of respect to Native Americans and the original name they gave to the peak.

The name of the mountain was officially changed from Denali to Mount McKinley in 1917, at the suggestion of a gold prospector. William McKinley, , was America’s 25th president. Naming the mountain after McKinley, seemingly at random, was viewed by many as an expression of cultural imperalism.

But not everyone was happy about the change back. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who represents the state where McKinley was born, said he was disappointed with the decision and blasted Obama for not deferring to Congress.

This decision by the Administration is yet another example of the President going around Congress (4/5)

— Rob Portman (@senrobportman) August 31, 2015

I'm disappointed with the Administration's decision to change the name of Mt. McKinley in Alaska (1/5)

— Rob Portman (@senrobportman) August 31, 2015

“This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans,” said Bob Gibbs, Congressman from Ohio. Gibbs also called the move unconstitutional and an effort to “ignore an act of Congress… to promote [Obama’s] job killing war on energy.” (In his upcoming trip to Alaska, Obama will also discuss climate change.)

The sentiment was echoed by House Speaker John Boehner, also of Ohio, who said he was “deeply disappointed in this decision.”

Keith Urbahn, former Chief of Staff to Donald Rumsfeld, was also not a fan:

Being a Union war hero of Antietam and Shenandoah, US President not good enough, apparently: http://t.co/Acx8LdxiKA

— Keith Urbahn (@keithurbahn) August 30, 2015

Conservative columnist Andrew Malcolm put a finer point on it:

Another Obama Exec Order. Erasing Mt. McKinley from all maps (he was a Republican after all) & renaming it after the GMC Truck, Denali.

— Andrew Malcolm (@AHMalcolm) August 31, 2015

Republican political consultant Derek Ryan agreed:

Because we can't have mountains named after Republican presidents. RT @nytimes Breaking News: Mount McKinley will be renamed Denali

— Derek Ryan (@longhornderek) August 30, 2015

Karl Rove also criticized the move, saying that “the 25th president gets overlooked too much already.” Rove is actually writing a book on William McKinley, which he’s hoping someone will now read:

Seems like good time 2 learn more about 25th POTUS. Pre-order "Triumph of William #McKinley" http://t.co/faAjz6GCCl http://t.co/kod3QUbl7z

— Karl Rove (@KarlRove) August 30, 2015

The positioning of Obama’s decision as a partisan political move is particularly odd. The renaming of the mountain Denali was praised effusively by Alaska’s Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski.

For centuries, Alaskans have known this majestic mountain as the ‘Great One.’ Today we are honored to be able to…

Posted by Lisa Murkowski on Sunday, August 30, 2015

Obama’s decision was also supported by Alaska’s Republican Governor, Bill Walker. In her farewell address to Alaska in 2009, Sarah Palin referred to the mountain as Denali.

Tags

Barack ObamaDenaliMount McKinleyRob Portman

The post appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Bernie Sanders: ‘Environmentalists Deserve A Debate’

On Sunday, Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke out about the need for issue-specific debates, saying his fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls should be debating multiple issues, including the environment.

“I think environmentalists deserve a debate so we could talk about how we move aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel,” Sanders said on CNN’s State of the Union.

Sanders’ comment came after he was asked about the Democratic National Committee’s decision to cap the number of primary debates. That decision drew fire from Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley on Friday.

“Four debates and only four debates — we are told, not asked — before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” the presidential candidate said at the DNC’s summer meeting. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.”

Sanders noted on Sunday that he also wanted to see other issue-specific debates among the Democratic candidates, including how they’d deal with the high cost of college and income inequality in the country. But the debate over science — and climate change in particular — is something that one group is pushing for this election. ScienceDebate, which formed during the 2008 election, is trying to convince campaigns and media outlets to air a general election debate focused solely on science. Sheril Kirshenbaum, executive director of the group, told ThinkProgress in June that she thinks voters need to know where candidates stand on climate change, health, energy and other science-related issues.

“People talk about these issues as if they’re just science issues and they’re really just human challenges,” she said. “No matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat, they’re going to affect you and your family.”

Sanders has been vocal about his acceptance of climate science and his views that the country needs to address climate change during the campaign. Sanders, a senator from Vermont, introduced a bill in July that would make it easier for low-income Americans to install solar power. He’s also said he opposes drilling in the Arctic and offshore drilling as a whole. On Sunday, he reiterated those views.

“I believe, along with Pope Francis and almost all scientists, that climate change is threatening this planet in horrendous ways, and that we have to be aggressive in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, he said, adding that he thinks the country must “defeat the Keystone pipeline.”

Tags

Climate ChangeDebate

The post Bernie Sanders: ‘Environmentalists Deserve A Debate’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Republican Presidential Candidates Say Climate Change Isn’t A Foreign Policy Issue

In two separate foreign policy addresses in South Carolina on Friday, Republican presidential candidates Scott Walker and Marco Rubio both criticized Democrats for addressing climate change as a foreign policy issue.

Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and other Democrats have spoken about the need to address climate issues as international policy and global security issues. But the Wisconsin governor and Florida senator, both climate change deniers, ruled out the possibility they would address global climate issues while dealing with what they see as major security threats like “radical Islamic terrorism” and Obama’s Iran deal.

“Political rhetoric will not keep us safe,” Walker said during his speech at The Citadel, the military college of South Carolina in Charleston. “We’ve had enough of a president who proclaims that the greatest threat to future generations is climate change.”

Similarly, in his speech focused on the country’s policies toward China at the Charleston Metro Chamber’s World Trade Center, Rubio criticized Clinton for acting on climate change when she served in the Obama administration.

“This is one of many reasons Hillary Clinton must not become our next president,” Rubio said. “One of her first actions as secretary of state was to reassure China’s rulers that cooperation on climate change, of all things, was more important to her than calling Beijing to account for its violations of human rights.”

Obama is currently traveling to a number of U.S. cities, including New Orleans on the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, to discuss the threats climate change pose to the country. Throughout his presidency, he has also addressed climate change as a foreign policy issue and has worked with other countries to take action to toward cleaner energy, renewable energy development, cutting energy waste, and reducing emissions, among other initiatives.

Obama has also stressed the links between climate change and conflict. The White House said in a report earlier this year that “a changing climate will act as an accelerant of instability around the world, exacerbating tensions related to water scarcity and food shortages, natural resource competition, underdevelopment, and overpopulation.”

Rubio’s denial of climate change as a human rights issue ignores all of the human rights implications of the warming of the planet — effects that are even more apparent on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction. The United Nations has called climate change a human rights issue because of the potential effects of sea level rise, natural disasters and other climate issues that undercut people’s rights to health, food, water, and even self-determination.

“Climate change impact is a moral issue above all,” Anote Tong, president of the small island nation Republic of Kiribati, told the UN. “It remains the biggest moral challenge facing human kind, and for low lying countries, climate change is about our survival into the future.”

The U.S. military understands the realities of how climate change affects people around the world and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels. But the presidential candidates aren’t the only lawmakers to ignore its expertise. The Republican controlled-House continues to dig in its heels, last year passing an amendment to prevent the Department of Defense from using funding to address the national security impacts of climate change.

Tags

Climate ChangeForeign PolicyMarco RubioScott Walker

The post Republican Presidential Candidates Say Climate Change Isn’t A Foreign Policy Issue appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Former FEMA Director Who Oversaw Katrina Does Not Accept Sea Level Rise

Michael D. Brown, the former Federal Emergency Management Agency director who resigned in disgrace after criticisms of how he handled the storm, is also a climate change science denier, particularly on the idea that seems most relevant to his former profession: sea level rise.

In a longer interview with ThinkProgress about his post-Katrina life, Brown got into his controversial stance on climate change — namely, his opinion that it’s not a human-caused problem, or a big deal.

Brown isn’t so different from a lot of conservatives who deny the science of climate change. But as the former director of the agency that manages natural disasters, his position on the issue is notable. He also still gives speeches on emergency preparedness, and sometimes appears on Fox News to criticize FEMA policies. He might, then, at least acknowledge that some natural disasters — flooding, drought, and wildfires, for example — would get worse because of climate change, because those would undoubtedly place a strain on emergency response.

Brown did concede that the climate was changing. But he wouldn’t acknowledge that humans had much to do with it. “I believe that any effect that man has on climate is de minimus,” he said. “But I do believe that as the climate changes — which it invariably will — that we learn how to mitigate against climate change.”

This rhetoric is sort of a trend among conservatives right now. It’s become obviously ridiculous to say that climate change isn’t happening at all (even though there are a few high-profile politicians who still do it). Instead, the cool thing now is to acknowledge things like our warming oceans, sea level rise, more intense droughts — but doubt how much carbon emissions play a role. That way, politicians can say they have solutions to climate change, but only in the form of adaptation to those effects. No efforts, however, to stop those effects from happening.

Brown isn’t a politician. Even if he were still director of FEMA, it wouldn’t much matter where he stood on reducing carbon emissions, so long as he acknowledged that the risks of natural disasters were increasing. That would seem to be the prudent thing to do as the director of the federal government’s disaster preparedness agency.

But in the ThinkProgress interview, Brown actually did doubt some of the data that says disaster risk is increasing — namely, sea level rise. The way Brown sees it, the sea levels will not rise the way scientists predict they will. This is partially proven, he said, by the fact that people are still buying and developing big properties on the more vulnerable areas of the East Coast. If Brown could be convinced that sea levels were rising, though, he did said he would support adaptation measures.

“I suppose — and I don’t believe this — that if sea levels are rising, instead of lowering the sea level … we ought to figure out ways to mitigate and build better structures that will mitigate the effects of rising sea levels,” he said.

Empirical data put together by researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and Australian National University among others have shown a steady rising of the sea. How badly this sea level rise will accelerate depends on the pace of certain ice melt. Right now, solely with the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, global sea levels could rise four feet within the next 200 years or so. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has high confidence in projections of increasing Greenland surface mass loss, and medium confidence in rapid glacier loss, both of which would contribute significantly to sea level rise.

[image error]

How sea levels have risen since 1870.

CREDIT: Church 2008

Brown’s not in charge of FEMA anymore. But he still speaks publicly about emergency management, so his stance on sea level rise is interesting — particularly because of how it’s affected Louisiana. Along with levee construction and oil and gas production, sea level rise has helped the state lose 1,880 square miles of coastline in the last 80 years, according to the National Climate Assessment. Native American tribes there are quickly and abruptly losing their land to the ocean. Much more land is projected to be lost if carbon emissions continue at their current pace.

Brown, however, is not really the one who needs convincing.

Tags

BrownieClimate ChangeFEMAkatrinaMichael D. Brown

The post Former FEMA Director Who Oversaw Katrina Does Not Accept Sea Level Rise appeared first on ThinkProgress.

A Broken Well Has Been Leaking Oil Into The Gulf Of Mexico For The Last 10 Years

For more than a decade, oil has been continuously leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that environmental groups and the New Orleans energy company responsible for the spill had finally reached a settlement ahead of a trial slated to begin in October.

According to the AP, under the terms of the settlement, Taylor Energy agreed to make a $300,000 donation to a Louisiana marine research consortium — to purchase vessels, electronics and other equipment — as well as fund $100,000 worth of research into the ecological effects of long-term oil leaks in the Gulf.

“We are pleased to have found common ground with Waterkeepers. The agreement balances the public’s right to information with adequate safeguards for Taylor’s proprietary technology,” Will Pecue, Taylor’s president, said in an emailed press statement.

According to Waterkeeper Alliance, however, there has been no final agreement on a settlement or terms.

“We are very pleased about the progress of negotiations with Taylor, and have come to a conceptual agreement that has not yet been finalized,” Waterkeeper Alliance said in a statement emailed to ThinkProgress. “As no final settlement agreement exists between the parties at this time, we are not at liberty to discuss the details of a potential settlement. We will provide a full statement when the settlement is finalized.”

The leak first began in 2004, when Hurricane Ivan struck the Gulf Coast, triggering an underwater mudslide that knocked over an offshore well platform owned by Taylor Energy. The mudslide essentially buried 28 wells beneath the Gulf, some 10 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Because the wells were buried some 475 feet under water in sediment up to 100 feet deep, traditional plug methods did not work to staunch the flow of oil.

In 2008, Taylor sold the last of its offshore assets. According to an April investigation into the spill by the AP, Taylor Energy currently has just one full-time employee, dedicated to managing the oil spill. Since the leak began in 2004, Taylor has downplayed its impacts, claiming that the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf has been tapering down in recent years, and that the ecological impacts of the spill were minimal. For years, Taylor was not forced to disclose details about its cleanup efforts, or other spill-related information, under the guise of protecting trade secrets.

The AP investigation, however, uncovered serious under-reporting in the volume of the spill, showing that actual amounts were some 20 times higher than figures put forth by Taylor Energy. According to government numbers, the annual average daily leak rate for the spill was around 22 gallons per day, and had fallen to 12 gallons per day by 2012. The AP, however, cited SkyTruth — a watchdog group that had monitored the spill’s slick by satellite — who said that the average daily leak rate could be between 37 and 900 gallons. The AP also found that pollution reports did not match Taylor’s official account of a decline in the rate of leaks — instead, the AP found that sheen size and oil volume related to the spill actually increased dramatically in 2014.

In 2008, the Coast Guard said that the spill posted a “significant threat” to the environment, capable of impacting fish, birds, and marine life. Using satellite data, SkyTruth estimates that between 300,000 and 1.4 million gallons of oil have spilled into the Gulf from the site of the leak since 2004, according to the AP. If the high-end estimates are right, that would make the spill one of the largest in the Gulf’s history — the Deepwater Horizon oil spill released between 134 and 176 million into the Gulf back in 2005.

According to U.S. government estimates obtained by the AP, if left unchecked, the Taylor Energy leak could continue to spill oil into the Gulf for at least another 100 years.

Tags

Climate ChangeGulf CoastOil

The post A Broken Well Has Been Leaking Oil Into The Gulf Of Mexico For The Last 10 Years appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Judge Steps In At Last Minute To Block EPA, Heroically Saves America From Clean Water

Late Thursday, a North Dakota federal judge issued a temporary injunction just hours before an Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers rule to protect small streams and wetlands went into effect.

North Dakota and 12 other states requested the injunction, which halts enforcement of the Waters of the United States rule. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming were also party to the suit, which seeks to have the rule, scheduled to go into effect Friday, overturned.

“I am very pleased by today’s ruling, which protects the state and its citizens from the serious harm presented by this unprecedented federal usurpation of the state’s authority,” North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said in a statement. “There is much more to do to prevent this widely unpopular rule from ever taking effect. Still, I remain confident that the rule will be declared unlawful once all the issues have been presented.”

The rule would protect two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands that were not clearly designated under the Clean Water Act. The rule clarifies what tributaries and wetlands are part of the overall water system and will decrease confusion and expense, the EPA and Army Corps said when the rule was announced. According to the EPA, one out of every three Americans gets drinking water from sources connected to water that did not — and, now, due to the injunction, still do not — have clear protections. The new rule is intended to protect downstream water sources, using current scientific practices to determine what bodies of water are interconnected, officials said.

Stenehjem noted that in the order, Judge Ralph Erickson found that “the states are likely to succeed on their claim because (1) it appears likely that the EPA has violated its Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the Rule at issue and (2) it appears likely the EPA failed to comply with [Administrative Procedure Act] requirements when promulgating the Rule.”

Erickson also wrote in the opinion that the states “have demonstrated that they will face irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Once the rule takes effect, the states will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters that will then be subject to the scope of the Clean Water Act.”

It is unclear whether the injunction applies only to the states that were party to the suit. The EPA said Friday that it intends to enforce the rule elsewhere.

“Clean water is vital to our health, communities, and economy,” the EPA said in an emailed statement. “The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depend on the streams and wetlands where they begin. Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities by trapping floodwaters, recharging groundwater supplies, filtering pollution, and providing habitat for fish and wildlife.”

Opponents have argued that the rule will be overly onerous for farmers and ranchers, and that the EPA is seeking to regulate “ditches.” The EPA’s use of social media to elicit comments has also been questioned.

The rule was first proposed in April 2014 and was open to public comments for more than seven months. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters in May that the new rule would not affect the “normal farming operations” that were already carved out under the Clean Water Act. Under the rule, there will be no new requirements for agriculture or forestry, industries which will retain “all the decades long exemptions” they currently enjoy, she said.

Some surprising groups have come out in favor of the rule — including a group of brewery owners, who testified to Congress that they rely on clean water for their industry. Environmental groups have also strongly supported extending the Clean Water Act to cover these small tributaries.

After the ruling, several groups reiterated their support for the rule.

“We are studying the ruling and evaluating our options for further action,” Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Jon Devine said in a statement emailed to ThinkProgress. “Despite this delay, we remain confident that this case and others attacking the rule as too protective will fail, and the rule will remain in place with necessary protections for the health and well-being of our families and communities, our prosperous fisheries and tourism industries.”

These 13 states are not the only group that wants to kill the rule. In June, the Senate passed a bill that would repeal the rule. President Obama has said he will veto legislation that seeks to undo the rule.

Another set of states — including Texas, Missouri, and Louisiana — filed a suit in a Houston federal court, claiming that “the very structure of the Constitution, and therefore liberty itself, is threatened when administrative agencies attempt to assert independent sovereignty and lawmaking authority that is superior to the states, Congress, and the courts.”

And a group of businesses organizations has also sued. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and three other organizations sued the the EPA and Army Corps in July, arguing that the rule “disrupts the careful balance” between local use and development of water sources and federal oversight.

Tags

Clean Water ActinjunctionNorth DakotaWaterWaters of the United StatesWOTUS

The post Judge Steps In At Last Minute To Block EPA, Heroically Saves America From Clean Water appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Destroying Poached Ivory May Do The Opposite Of Its Intended Effect

Thailand crushed and incinerated two tons of ivory from its stockpile on Wednesday. The move was praised by conservation groups who have long believed that the country has turned a blind eye toward illegal trade of ivory.

“For too long Thailand has been exploited by wildlife criminals as both a gateway and marketplace for ivory poached in Africa and Asia,” Janpai Ongsiriwittaya of the World Wildlife Foundation said in a statement.

Noting several regulatory steps the country has taken to protect elephants and crack down on illicit ivory trade, she said, “Thailand’s ivory destruction is more than just a symbolic event.”

While many conservation groups have called countries that supply ivory and those that buy it to destroy the stockpiles of ivory they seize at their borders or collect from national parks as a way to curb demand, the impact of such efforts are complex and not well-studied.

“Ivory destruction events remove ivory from supply and potentially signal to the market that the commodity is getting scarcer,” Tom Milliken of TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade monitoring network, said in an email to ThinkProgress.

Economic theory holds that as ivory becomes scarcer, the price for ivory will rise. Since people tend to buy ivory even as its prices rise, those involved in illegally trafficking and trading ivory might stand to make higher profits by continuing to sell ivory.

If that argument holds, Milliken wrote, “[P]oaching of elephants will continue and possibly even increase.”

“On the other hand,” he said, “the messaging behind destruction events in end-use markets can serve to dissuade some potential consumers from buying ivory.”

In other words, the economic impact of destroying ivory could go either way. But there are other considerations as well.

Ivory trade experts Dan Stiles and Brendan Moyle maintain that destroying ivory won’t change the factors that facilitate poaching. They wrote in an op-ed for the South China Morning Post after Hong Kong began to destroy its stockpile of ivory last year:

The rise in poaching is not a puzzle. Nor is it a recent problem. It is a result of increasing affluence in Asia and increasing trade and investment between East Asia and Africa. It’s also a result of instability and weak governance in Africa. The destruction of ivory has no effect on these factors. Civil war in Central Africa won’t stop because Hong Kong destroys ivory. Chinese consumers won’t become poorer because Hong Kong destroys ivory. Countries have been destroying ivory since Kenya burnt 12 tons of it in 1989, and it hasn’t made a dent in the illegal trade.

They warned against the destruction of ivory as a risky way to try to drive down demand. 

“It’s a gamble,” they wrote. “A well-meaning gamble to be sure, but a gamble that could backfire — badly.”

[image error]

In March, Kenyan officials set fifteen tons of elephant tusks on fire during an anti-poaching ceremony at Nairobi National Park in Nairobi, Kenya.

Even so, it’s a gamble that many countries have taken since Kenya first opted to do so in a bid to have elephants added to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species – and thus ban the trade of ivory. Kenya set another 15 tons of ivory ablaze in March. Gabon burned its entire stockpile in June 2012. The following year, the Philippines became the first country outside of Africa to burn its ivory.

Conservation groups have also called on private citizens of various countries to give up ivory they feel uncomfortable owning for symbolic public destruction events. Some 2,000 pounds of ivory were destroyed at such an event in New York City’s Times Square in June.

Beyond the symbolism of these events, some feel that destroying ivory ensures that it’s kept out of the black market.

Some have argued that doing so is important because ivory held by the government has been known to go missing, likely because it was stolen and sold by corrupt officials. Having to keep close watch over masses of ivory from theft can be costly.

Tanzania spent $75,000 a year on guarding 12,000-some tusks. In total, the country has nearly 120,000 tons of both legal ivory from elephants that died of natural causes as well as illegal, poached, ivory that is valued at upwards of $50 million in total.

The east African country has been a particularly unsafe home for elephants. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, Tanzania has lost 60 percent of its elephants in the last five years, primarily due to poaching.

The WWF estimates that only 500,000 African elephants remain in the wild, down from at least three million. About 100,000 elephants are lost to poaching every year.

While leaders of Tanzania, Botswana, Gabon, and Chad agreed to a 10-year moratorium on the sale of ivory last year, many conservation organizations agree that destroying ivory is the only way to ensure that it will not enter into black markets. 

Some have called for the markets to be flooded with ivory, a move that they believe would drive down the costs of ivory and making poaching less lucrative.

To that point, environmental journalist Karl Mathiesen wrote in the Guardian: “It might stop gangs from profiting from the trade for a few years. But when the stockpiles of cheap ivory are exhausted and ivory has become an acceptable, accessible commodity, the market will be ripe for criminal vultures and speculators to profit from an even bigger demand than exists today.” 

We have to tackle this from both ends of the trade, stopping the poaching of elephants where they exist in the wild and reducing demand for ivory in the markets presently consuming ivory.

The only way to render the ivory completely worthless, according to a non-profit organization called Burn the Ivory, is to do just that: “By destroying stockpiles, a clear message would be conveyed that elephants are worth more alive than dead.”

It is true that living elephants are worth a great deal more than their tusks. According to one recent study, one live, adult, elephant brings in about $1.6 million from tourism during the course of its life — that’s 76 times more than the price its tusks fetch on the black market.

It’s because both sides of the economic argument have weight that both the supply and demand of ivory have to be curbed to try to save elephants from being killed for their tusks.

“We have to tackle this from both ends of the trade, stopping the poaching of elephants where they exist in the wild and reducing demand for ivory in the markets presently consuming ivory,” Milliken told ThinkProgress. “To do so, demand for ivory worldwide has to be reduced to levels whereby the incentive to kill elephants to supply ivory no longer exists.”

Tags

elephantsEndangered SpeciesIllegal TradeIvorySmugglingWildlife

The post Destroying Poached Ivory May Do The Opposite Of Its Intended Effect appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Hawaii’s Going 100 Percent Renewable, And It’s Not Using Natural Gas As A ‘Transition’

Hawaiian Gov. David Ige said this week he opposes plans to use liquefied natural gas as a “transitional fuel” for the island state as it moves to 100 percent renewable electricity. Ige said investment in infrastructure for LNG — or any fossil fuel — was misplaced, and he expressed doubt that there would be any monetary benefits to LNG proposals.

“LNG is a fossil fuel. LNG is imported. And any time or money spent on LNG is time and money not spent on renewable energy,” Ige told the audience at the Asia Pacific Resilience Innovation Summit and Expo in Honolulu on Monday night.

The governor’s remarks are especially significant because Florida-based NextEra Energy is trying to purchase Hawaii’s major utilities. NextEra is an electric utility that also produces natural gas, which makes up a large portion of its generation mix.

Hawaii’s public utility corporation (PUC) is currently reviewing NextEra’s bid, after the board of the Hawaiian Electric Companies, which serve most of Hawaii between three providers, approved the deal. Hawaiians have voiced concern that NextEra will transition the state’s power fleet from oil to natural gas. Hawaii gets more of its electricity from oil than any other state — and it has the highest electricity rates.

For the first time, we were watching a car being powered by the ocean…this is really the kind of stuff we should be focusing on

Natural gas has long been touted as a “transitional” fuel — a lower-carbon option than burning coal that can be used until even lower-carbon options such as wind and solar ramp up. But methane emissions from LNG development, especially fracking, are even more potent than carbon in terms of trapping heat. Many environmentalists argue that the switch to natural gas is not an effective means of addressing climate change. And volatile prices can make installing new natural gas infrastructure risky.

But moving to natural gas might not help lower costs, said State Rep. Chris Lee, chair of Hawaii’s Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection.

“When you factor in infrastructure to make LNG available, it may not pencil out,” he told ThinkProgress. And when you look at LNG’s cost “both economically and environmentally both here and at the source, then it definitely doesn’t pencil out.”

Instead, Lee said, the state should be investing in more renewable energy sources.

“There’s all kinds of new technology and offshore renewables that we can integrate into our grid right now,” he said.

Hawaii is already home to the first grid-tied wave power device, installed earlier this summer. This week, the state added its first modern ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) project, Lee said. OTEC is the process of using the temperature difference between warm and cold ocean water to generate electricity. At the launch of the project, the operators connected houses and charged a Tesla car.

“For the first time, we were watching a car being powered by the ocean,” Lee said. “It was really exciting. This is really the kind of stuff we should be focusing on.”

Hawaii is arguably the most renewable state in the nation. One out of every eight homes has solar power, and the state’s commitment to use 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 is the most aggressive renewable portfolio standard in the country.

“We have crazy high penetration with PV,” Lee said. “And there is still so much headroom above that.”

Apparently, the governor agrees.

“When it was first proposed, I was willing to support it as a ‘transitional fuel’ because it had some clear advantages for Hawaii,” Ige said. “Much has changed since then. LNG will no longer save us any money. Meeting EPA rules, even assuming the rules do go into effect, can be handled in other ways without huge cost. And the capital plans of those wishing to import LNG are anything but small.”

The PUC is expected to rule on NextEra’s bid in the first half of next year. But first, all during September and October, the commission will hold “listening sessions” across the islands, testing the public’s appetite for an out-of-state, natural-gas affiliated utility.

Tags

ElectricityEnergyHawaiiLNGNatural GasNextEraOceanpowerrenewablesSolarthermalWind

The post Hawaii’s Going 100 Percent Renewable, And It’s Not Using Natural Gas As A ‘Transition’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

7 Out Of 10 Americans Want Their States To Comply With The EPA’s Climate Plan

Americans support the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan by a margin of nearly two to one, a new poll from the League of Conservation Voters found.

Despite the rhetoric from some Republican governors, 70 percent of Americans want their states to develop plans to meet the EPA’s guidelines. Carbon emissions from power plants will be regulated for the first time under the EPA plan, finalized earlier this month.

“It is good news that support for the Clean Power Plan remains strong, but it’s especially good news to see that Americans want their governors on board with the plan too,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in a statement. “State leaders who are choosing to fight these carbon pollution safeguards would do well to listen to their constituents instead of the polluters.”

According to the poll, conducted for the League of Conservation Voters by Hart Research, supporters of the plan outnumber opponents pretty much across the board.

“A majority of voters in every region of the country support it, as do a majority of voters in every age, education, and income category,” the researchers found. And while there is majority support among both Democrats and Independents, Republicans are not far behind: 56 percent of “non-conservative” Republicans are generally in favor of the Clean Power Plan, and 58 percent of all Republicans want their state to comply with the EPA rule — even if they don’t support it.

The new poll largely echoes a recent poll of likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire, who also broadly supported the Clean Power Plan. Another poll of Republicans found that most support acting on climate change.

And while the poll found support for this particular way of reducing carbon emissions, other efforts to combat climate change saw even more enthusiasm. In fact, more than three in four voters said they wanted more state investment in renewable sources of electricity, such as wind and solar, and energy efficiency programs.

Republican presidential candidates, though, do not appear to reflect their constituents’ positions. Republican leaders largely criticized the plan, which aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, when it was announced.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called it a “lawless and radical attempt to destabilize the nation’s energy system,” and predicted that it would raise electricity prices “unless it is invalidated by Congress, struck down by the courts, or rescinded by the next Administration.” Sen. Marco Rubio said the plan wouldn’t do anything, anyway, because India and China are still going to pollute.

But beyond the rhetoric, how to respond to the Clean Power Plan is a pressing question for sitting Republican governors. Under Gov. John Kasich, Ohio joined a failed lawsuit to halt the Clean Power Plan before it was finalized. Ohio has also signed on to the newest court challenge.

But that doesn’t actually mean that Ohio won’t be developing an implementation plan. In fact, it likely is working on one already. The state’s Public Utility Commission warned in March that passing legislation to stop a plan would backfire, leaving the electricity sector scrambling. As written, the Clean Power Plan gives states wide latitude to develop state implementation plans to meet the reduction goals. But, if a state fails to submit an acceptable plan, the EPA will provide one.

This new data might give governors the push they need to support developing implementation plans.

Tags

Clean Power PlanCPPDemocratsEnvironmental Protection AgencyEPAimplementationIndependentsplansRepublicanssupport

The post 7 Out Of 10 Americans Want Their States To Comply With The EPA’s Climate Plan appeared first on ThinkProgress.