Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 105

Islamic Leaders Call For Phasing Out Global Fossil Fuels

Islamic leaders from 20 countries have unveiled a sweeping new declaration on climate change, calling on their fellow Muslims to care for the planet and asking world leaders to phase out their use of fossil fuels.

On Tuesday, attendees at International Islamic Climate Change Symposium concluded their two-day summit in Istanbul, Turkey by issuing a formal declaration on global environmental issues. The declaration — which was clear to stipulate that climate change is both real and “human induced” — was equal parts theological and scientific, using an Islamic moral lens to insist that world leaders take immediate action to assist our warming planet.

“Our species, though selected to be a caretaker or steward (khalifah) on the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation on it that we are in danger ending life as we know it on our planet,” the statement read. “Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us by God, whom we know as Allah –- gifts such as a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans.”

“What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?” the authors added.

What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?

The statement also made specific recommendations for world leaders who plan to attend the much-anticipated talks on climate change in Paris this December, hosted by the United Nations. The authors demanded that wealthy nations phase out their use of fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy systems, as well as lend aid to impoverished communities currently suffering from the harsh impacts of climate change — including parts of the world densely populated by Muslims.

“We call upon [leaders participating in the Paris talks] … to bring their discussions to an equitable and binding conclusion, bearing in mind … the enormous responsibility the [conference] shoulders on behalf of the rest of humanity, including leading the rest of us to a new way of relating to God’s Earth,” the document read.

The declaration was signed by the assembly’s 60 participants, including prominent Muslim voices such as Shaban Ramadha Mubajje, the grand mufti of Uganda, and Mohamed Ashmawey, head of Islamic Relief Worldwide. In addition, organizers of the conference — Islamic Relief Worldwide, the Islamic Forum for Ecology and Environmental Sciences, and GreenFaith — noted in a press release that the declaration was endorsed by other leaders not at the convening, such as the grand mufti of Lebanon.

“On behalf of the Indonesian Council of Ulema and 210 million Muslims we welcome this Declaration and we are committed to to implementing all recommendations,” Din Syamsuddin, Chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (a body of Muslims scholars), said in a statement.

Organizers also made reference to Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on the environment, a nod to the fast-growing multi-faith movement to address climate change. Religious groups from all sides of the theological spectrum have been mobilizing to address environmental issues this year, partly due to the pope’s advocacy, and partly due to longstanding support for the environment among people of faith.

“It is with great joy and in a spirit of solidarity that I express to you the promise of the Catholic Church to pray for the success of your initiative and her desire to work with you in the future to care for our common home and thus to glorify the God who created us,” Cardinal Peter Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said of the Islamic declaration.

But while the symposium’s statement was geared towards high-level world leaders, it also included a clarion call for Muslims of all walks of life to tackle climate change in their daily lives.

“We call on all Muslims wherever they may be … to tackle habits, mindsets, and the root causes of climate change, environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity in their particular spheres of influence, following the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and bring about a resolution to the challenges that now face us,” the document read.

Tags

Climate ChangeIslam

The post Islamic Leaders Call For Phasing Out Global Fossil Fuels appeared first on ThinkProgress.

This Prominent Opponent Of Climate Action Has Taken Massive Amounts Of Money From Big Oil Companies

The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a prominent critic of environmental and renewable energy initiatives, is getting even more of its funding from fossil fuel energy companies than previously thought.

According to an analysis by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting (FCIR), the group’s funding — which had been known to include at least $1 million from ExxonMobil — can in fact be traced to several other fossil fuel companies.

The FCIR reported that the NBCC’s sponsors included utilities, trade groups, and fossil fuel companies that have opposed action to cut carbon pollution: Chevron, Southern Company, Gulf Power, Koch Industries, Georgia-Pacific, and the American Chemistry Council.

The ExxonMobil Foundation has disclosed the grants it provides for years, and thus has been known to be a significant funder of the NBCC. The foundations affiliated with oil giant Chevron and coal-heavy Southern Company in particular do not disclose grants were previously not public funders of the organization.

“NBCC has been shilling for the interests of big oil and and maybe coal and utilities interests going back nearly 20 years,” Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigations Center, told ThinkProgress. “To date, all we have been able to confirm was ExxonMobil’s financial stake in NBCC. Ultimately, stopping climate and other environmental protections are not the interests of ‘black business’, but the interests of very very big business.”

“The National Black Chamber of Commerce should take a firm stand against the misinformation being spread by these industries,” Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said in a statement in early August. “I believe that we should all be on the side of families, not industry polluters. I urge the NBCC to cut ties with these groups immediately.”

Last week, the Washington, D.C.-based NBCC hosted its annual conference in Florida. The Sunshine State has been ground zero in a fight over increasing access to solar power. Instead of embracing a ballot initiative that seeks to allow ordinary people to purchase solar power directly from other consumers, as conservative groups like Floridians for Solar Choice have, the NBCC “decried the Shady Solar Amendment as misleading” in a release.

Harry C. Alford, president and CEO of the NBCC, said in the statement that his concern was over “potential increases in electric service rates and higher state and local taxes” should the amendment pass.

FCIR puts the source and scope of Alford and NBCC’s fossil fuel funding into perspective. Reporter Francisco Alvarado notes that Alford’s “opposition to clean energy initiatives has help[ed to] create a substantial revenue stream for the National Black Chamber of Commerce.” Looking at IRS tax filings, Alvarado found that the NBCC brings in around $1 million a year, “with most of the money coming from large companies that oppose clean energy initiatives.”

“It’s a lot of money given the organization’s small staff,” Alvarado wrote. “The National Black Chamber of Commerce lists just two key employees on annual IRS filings — Alford and his wife.”

Robert Bullard, dean of the school of public affairs at Texas Southern University and arguably the foremost pioneer of the environmental justice movement, has said the NBCC has misrepresented the interests of the African American community for years. He posted a comment on FCIR’s article via his Facebook account to criticize the NBCC:

The National Black Chamber of Commerce for more than a decade has been spreading propaganda and talking points of the white U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Most black folks know Harry Alford does not represent them or the black business community at large. One need only peruse his organization’s thin membership and major contributor list to understand what’s really going on. This is not rocket science. African Americans were essential in the founding of the U.S. environmental and climate justice movement because our communities are disproportionately and adversely impacted.

The group’s opposition to policies seeking to cut pollution and increase renewable energy stretches back to the late 1990s, when the NBCC fought against the Kyoto protocol.

In August 1997, the NBCC approved a resolution opposing U.S. participation in any meaningful U.N. climate pact like the one to be negotiated in Kyoto, Japan later that year. The resolution said that “the NBCC dedicates itself to educating its members, constituents, and others that there is no scientific reason for limits on greenhouse gas emissions.” It stated concerns that climate action would disproportionately impact urban areas and black-owned businesses.

[image error]

A portion of NBCC’s “Resolution on Global Climate Change.”

CREDIT: Screenshot

Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) bills itself as “an internationally recognized, Washington D.C.-based economic research and management consulting firm with expertise in economic forecasting, litigation support and expert witness testimony, analysis of energy, environmental and electric utility issues, and labor markets.”

Roger Bezdek, MISI’s president, has been with the firm for nearly 30 years, and has spoken at past NBCC conferences. MISI has written reports for ACCCE, the “clean coal” industry group, on “the social benefits of carbon” pollution. Bezdek has given presentations on the same topic, earning a Washington Post op-ed debunking his climate denier views.

Bezdek’s firm has a history of working with NBCC. In 2000, MISI did an analysis (pdf download) about the likely economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on minority communities in the United States, sponsored by the NBCC and several other minority business groups. Its conclusion: “by virtually any economic, employment, or social criterion, Blacks and Hispanics will likely be seriously harmed by implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.”

MISI recently updated that analysis for the same collection of business groups in a report called, “”Refusing to repeat past mistakes: How the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol would disproportionately threaten the economic well-being of Blacks and Hispanics in the United States.”

In June, MISI authored a report just for the NBCC about the impact EPA’s proposed carbon rule would have on minority communities. It concluded, once again, that “these regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy impacts at the national level and for all states, and the impacts on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe.” This report relied on thoroughly debunked studies from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and NERA Economic Consulting about the alleged costs of EPA’s proposed rule.

During his speech announcing the EPA’s final carbon rule for existing power plants, President Obama noted that an African American child was twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma.

“Even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities,” Obama said. “Even though climate change hurts those Americans the most, who are the most vulnerable.”

African American communities are disproportionately impacted by all kinds of fossil fuel pollution, including carbon pollution, which can trap heat and pollutants. This damages air quality and triggers asthma and heart attacks.

Alford testified before Congress earlier this year against EPA regulations limiting ground-level ozone levels, one of more than a dozen appearances before various committees. These statements do not help African American communities, according to Dr. Michael Dorsey, interim director for the Energy and Environment Program at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

“This testimony harms African Americans,” Dorsey told ThinkProgress earlier this year. “Alford’s false claims about energy are a triple threat — they harm African Americans in their wallets, they harm them in their lungs, and they threaten the environments they live in. He doesn’t even represent black business, it’s criminal.”

The NBCC’s rival, the U.S. Black Chambers (USBC), fully supports President Obama’s recently released Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Ron Busby, the USBC’s president and CEO, wrote members a letter explaining why his organization gave “strong support” to the CPP.

“The USBC supports any endeavor that will create businesses and jobs, stimulate the economy, increase employment while simultaneously creating a safe and healthy living environment in the U.S., preeminently, those underserved communities that are hit the hardest,” Busby said in the letter.

Tags

ChevronExxonMobilFloridaKoch BrothersKyoto ProtocolNational Black Chamber of CommerceSolar Power

The post This Prominent Opponent Of Climate Action Has Taken Massive Amounts Of Money From Big Oil Companies appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Obama Administration Approves Shell’s Request To Drill Even Deeper In The Arctic

Just weeks after giving Royal Dutch Shell final approval to begin exploring for oil in the Arctic Ocean, the Obama administration is now allowing the oil company to drill even deeper.

On Monday, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved Shell’s application to modify one if its exploratory drilling permits in the Chukchi Sea, about 140 miles from Alaska’s northwest shoreline. That modification means that Shell can “burrow into potential oil-bearing reservoirs thousands of feet below the seafloor that previously had been off limits,” according to a report in Fuel Fix.

In a statement, BSEE said approval had been granted after “extensive review and under a robust array of safety requirements.” But environmental groups were not pleased.

“Today’s decision makes it final: President Obama is willing to allow the pristine Chukchi Sea to become an energy sacrifice zone and worsen climate disruption,” Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Marissa Knodel said in an emailed statement. “President Obama should know better — Shell has no business in our Arctic Ocean, and he will bear responsibility for the damage that Shell wreaks there.”

BSEE’s announcement comes just two weeks before President Obama is scheduled to make a trip to Alaska to discuss the dangers of climate change. According to some studies, all oil and gas from the Arctic must remain in the ground if global temperature rise is to be kept under 2 degrees Celsius.

Obama’s approval of Shell’s request to drill in the Arctic has been confusing to many, as it’s seen as contradictory to his seemingly keen interest in fighting climate change. Asked why he approved drilling there in a recent Twitter Q&A session, Obama said it would be impossible to stop oil exploration in the Arctic completely, so he has implemented “the highest possible standards” instead.

Tags

Arctic DrillingObamaShell

The post Obama Administration Approves Shell’s Request To Drill Even Deeper In The Arctic appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Here’s How The Government Plans To Cut Emissions From Landfills

The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans Friday that aim to reduce landfill emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases by nearly a third, in an attempt to more tightly regulate a sector that accounts for nearly a fifth of total U.S. methane emissions.

The proposals seek to update methane regulations on new and existing landfills. If enacted, the EPA says the regulations would reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills by 487,000 tons a year beginning in 2025. Since methane is about 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, that reduction would be equal to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 12.2 million metric tons — the amount emitted by more than 1.1 million homes. Under the proposed rules, landfills would have to start capturing two-thirds of their methane and other hazardous emissions by 2023. That’s 13 percent more than they’re currently required to capture.

The proposed regulations would apply to the more than 2,000 active municipal solid waste landfills in the United States, which together make up the nation’s third-largest source of methane emissions. These emissions are produced when organic matter, such as food waste, decomposes in a landfill. Once the EPA’s proposed rules are filed in the federal register, they’ll be subject to a 60-day public commenting period.

Though regulations can help cut down on these emissions, research has pointed towards the need to reduce the amount of food waste going into landfills. A 2013 report found that as much as 40 percent of the food produced in the U.S. is thrown away — meaning that 31 million tons of food is added to landfills every year. A report earlier this year found that, in the U.K., each metric ton of food that’s wasted is associated with 4.0 to 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

Food is wasted for different reasons around the world: in developing countries, it’s often lack of refrigeration, inefficient harvesting methods, and poor transportation options that cause food waste. In richer countries, there’s more consumer-side food waste: people simply buy too much food and throw away what they don’t end up eating. “Ugly” food is also often thrown away in wealthier countries: according to the U.N. Environment Program, up to 40 percent of produce ends up getting thrown away by farmers because it doesn’t meet supermarkets’ standards for attractiveness.

The EPA aims to capture more of the methane emissions from landfills, but there are also options for converting the gas and turning it into a source of energy. Sending garbage to energy from waste (EfW) facilities can help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that end up in the atmosphere: the EPA estimates that for every ton of garbage an EfW facility processes, about one ton of CO2e is prevented. EfW facilities burn the trash in a controlled environment, and this burning generates electricity. According to a 2013 report from the Center for American Progress, though trapping methane and using it as an energy source is a good step forward for reducing emissions from landfills, it isn’t as effective as sending trash to EfW facilities.

Tags

LandfillsMethane

The post Here’s How The Government Plans To Cut Emissions From Landfills appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Government Introduces Plan To Cut Emissions From Landfills By A Third

The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans Friday that aim to reduce landfill emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases by nearly a third, in an attempt to more tightly regulate a sector that accounts for nearly a fifth of total U.S. methane emissions.

The proposals seek to update methane regulations on new and existing landfills. If enacted, the EPA says the regulations would reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills by 487,000 tons a year beginning in 2025. Since methane is about 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, that reduction would be equal to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 12.2 million metric tons — the amount emitted by more than 1.1 million homes. Under the proposed rules, landfills would have to start capturing two-thirds of their methane and other hazardous emissions by 2023. That’s 13 percent more than they’re currently required to capture.

The proposed regulations would apply to the more than 2,000 active municipal solid waste landfills in the United States, which together make up the nation’s third-largest source of methane emissions. These emissions are produced when organic matter, such as food waste, decomposes in a landfill. Once the EPA’s proposed rules are filed in the federal register, they’ll be subject to a 60-day public commenting period.

Though regulations can help cut down on these emissions, research has pointed towards the need to reduce the amount of food waste going into landfills. A 2013 report found that as much as 40 percent of the food produced in the U.S. is thrown away — meaning that 31 million tons of food is added to landfills every year. A report earlier this year found that, in the U.K., each metric ton of food that’s wasted is associated with 4.0 to 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

Food is wasted for different reasons around the world: in developing countries, it’s often lack of refrigeration, inefficient harvesting methods, and poor transportation options that cause food waste. In richer countries, there’s more consumer-side food waste: people simply buy too much food and throw away what they don’t end up eating. “Ugly” food is also often thrown away in wealthier countries: according to the U.N. Environment Program, up to 40 percent of produce ends up getting thrown away by farmers because it doesn’t meet supermarkets’ standards for attractiveness.

The EPA aims to capture more of the methane emissions from landfills, but there are also options for converting the gas and turning it into a source of energy. Sending garbage to energy from waste (EfW) facilities can help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that end up in the atmosphere: the EPA estimates that for every ton of garbage an EfW facility processes, about one ton of CO2e is prevented. EfW facilities burn the trash in a controlled environment, and this burning generates electricity. According to a 2013 report from the Center for American Progress, though trapping methane and using it as an energy source is a good step forward for reducing emissions from landfills, it isn’t as effective as sending trash to EfW facilities.

Tags

LandfillsMethane

The post Government Introduces Plan To Cut Emissions From Landfills By A Third appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Ted Cruz’s Bank Account Would Soar If We Increased Oil And Gas Production

Nearly a quarter of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) current personal wealth is made up of direct investments in fossil fuels, an unusually high amount for an elected official.

The Republican presidential candidate holds up to $850,000 worth of stock in six oil- and gas-related companies, which make up anywhere from 15 to 23 percent of his total personal assets, according to Cruz’s financial disclosure forms. That’s an unusually high percentage for a member of Congress, according to one professor who studies lawmakers’ personal wealth and how it relates to public policy.

“That’s definitely an above-average amount of assets in the oil and gas industry compared to other members of Congress,” said Christian R. Grose, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern California. Grose analyzed the fossil fuel investments in Cruz’s financial disclosure forms for ThinkProgress.

According to an analysis of Cruz’s forms, he holds anywhere from $365,006 to $850,000 in energy and oil stocks. Cruz’s total assets could be anywhere from $1.6 million to $4.3 million, excluding a large campaign loan valued anywhere from $500,001 to $1 million. According to Grose’s calculations, that means fossil fuel investments make up anywhere from 15.8 to 22.7 percent of Cruz’s total assets.

[image error]

CREDIT: Graphic by Andrew Breiner

In one sense, Cruz’s oil and gas investments are unsurprising. Along with being an unabashed fossil fuel supporter, he is a Republican from Texas, so his personal investments are in the interest of his constituents.

“It’s not just ‘Oh, he’s owning these things, so that’s why he would support the oil and gas industry,” Grose said.

At the same time, Grose’s research has shown that legislators’ personal financial interests are likely to impact their decision-making. Along with his graduate student Jordan C. Peterson, Grose has found that public officials are more likely to support financial and housing market deregulation if they had a personal stake in the financial and housing markets.

Though Grose’s research doesn’t consider fossil fuel investments specifically, he theorized that the effect may be similar. “His own personal financial well-being rests on how well the energy sector is doing,” he said. “So any regulation that could hurt that sector would be detrimental to his bottom line.”

Cruz holds assets in the oil and gas production company Oneok, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Oklahoma natural gas company One Gas, pipeline company Enterprise Products, and Plains All American Pipeline.

Fossil fuel industry players also contribute a significant amount of money to Cruz’s political career. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the oil and gas industry has been Cruz’s biggest corporate financial supporter since he began campaigning for the 2012 Senate race in Texas.

Cruz has historically supported policies that grow the oil and gas sector, and has opposed policies that seek to grow renewable energy. Just last week in Iowa, Cruz said he would not support the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires a certain amount of corn-based ethanol to be blended into U.S. gasoline. The policy is popular among Iowans because of the state’s farm-based economy, and many Republicans have expressed support for it.

In the Senate, Cruz has pushed to gut environmental regulations that impact the oil and gas sector. His proposed American Energy Renaissance Act would limit the Clean Air Act so governments are not able to regulate pollution from carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. His bill also includes provisions to approve the Keystone XL pipeline; to increase drilling on public lands like national parks and forests; to prevent federal regulation of fracking; and to end the ban on crude oil exports.

Cruz also rejects the science that says humans cause climate change, calling climate scientists “the equivalent of the flat-Earthers” while comparing himself to Galileo for denying the data. His rejection of climate science is one reason why he does not support policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, according to the EPA.

Though a comparatively large percentage of Cruz’s assets are in oil and gas, he is not currently deriving a lot of income from them. According to his disclosure form, Cruz derived anywhere from $20,406 to $62,000 from his fossil fuel stock holdings, which (if you include his campaign loan) make up anywhere from 5.5 to 12.9 percent of his total income. Most of his income comes from royalties on his new book, A Time For Truth. The form does not include his Senate salary.

Representatives for the Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.

Tags

Election 2016Fossil FuelsTed Cruz

The post Ted Cruz’s Bank Account Would Soar If We Increased Oil And Gas Production appeared first on ThinkProgress.

How Ted Cruz Stands To Personally Profit From Fossil Fuels

Nearly a quarter of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) current personal wealth is made up of direct investments in fossil fuels, an unusually high amount for an elected official.

The Republican presidential candidate holds up to $850,000 worth of stock in six oil- and gas-related companies, which make up anywhere from 15 to 23 percent of his total personal assets, according to Cruz’s financial disclosure forms. That’s an unusually high percentage for a member of Congress, according to one professor who studies lawmakers’ personal wealth and how it relates to public policy.

“That’s definitely an above-average amount of assets in the oil and gas industry compared to other members of Congress,” said Christian R. Grose, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern California. Grose analyzed the fossil fuel investments in Cruz’s financial disclosure forms for ThinkProgress.

According to an analysis of Cruz’s forms, he holds anywhere from $365,006 to $850,000 in energy and oil stocks. Cruz’s total assets could be anywhere from $1.6 million to $4.3 million, excluding a large campaign loan valued anywhere from $500,001 to $1 million. According to Grose’s calculations, that means fossil fuel investments make up anywhere from 15.8 to 22.7 percent of Cruz’s total assets.

[image error]

CREDIT: Graphic by Andrew Breiner

In one sense, Cruz’s oil and gas investments are unsurprising. Along with being an unabashed fossil fuel supporter, he is a Republican from Texas, so his personal investments are in the interest of his constituents.

“It’s not just ‘Oh, he’s owning these things, so that’s why he would support the oil and gas industry,” Grose said.

At the same time, Grose’s research has shown that legislators’ personal financial interests are likely to impact their decision-making. Along with his graduate student Jordan C. Peterson, Grose has found that public officials are more likely to support financial and housing market deregulation if they had a personal stake in the financial and housing markets.

Though Grose’s research doesn’t consider fossil fuel investments specifically, he theorized that the effect may be similar. “His own personal financial well-being rests on how well the energy sector is doing,” he said. “So any regulation that could hurt that sector would be detrimental to his bottom line.”

Cruz holds assets in the oil and gas production company Oneok, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Oklahoma natural gas company One Gas, pipeline company Enterprise Products, and Plains All American Pipeline.

Fossil fuel industry players also contribute a significant amount of money to Cruz’s political career. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the oil and gas industry has been Cruz’s biggest corporate financial supporter since he began campaigning for the 2012 Senate race in Texas.

Cruz has historically supported policies that grow the oil and gas sector, and has opposed policies that seek to grow renewable energy. Just last week in Iowa, Cruz said he would not support the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires a certain amount of corn-based ethanol to be blended into U.S. gasoline. The policy is popular among Iowans because of the state’s farm-based economy, and many Republicans have expressed support for it.

In the Senate, Cruz has pushed to gut environmental regulations that impact the oil and gas sector. His proposed American Energy Renaissance Act would limit the Clean Air Act so governments are not able to regulate pollution from carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. His bill also includes provisions to approve the Keystone XL pipeline; to increase drilling on public lands like national parks and forests; to prevent federal regulation of fracking; and to end the ban on crude oil exports.

Cruz also rejects the science that says humans cause climate change, calling climate scientists “the equivalent of the flat-Earthers” while comparing himself to Galileo for denying the data. His rejection of climate science is one reason why he does not support policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, according to the EPA.

Though a comparatively large percentage of Cruz’s assets are in oil and gas, he is not currently deriving a lot of income from them. According to his disclosure form, Cruz derived anywhere from $20,406 to $62,000 from his fossil fuel stock holdings, which (if you include his campaign loan) make up anywhere from 5.5 to 12.9 percent of his total income. Most of his income comes from royalties on his new book, A Time For Truth. The form does not include his Senate salary.

Representatives for the Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.

Tags

Election 2016Fossil FuelsTed Cruz

The post How Ted Cruz Stands To Personally Profit From Fossil Fuels appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Meat-Eaters Are The Number One Cause Of Worldwide Species Extinction, New Study Warns

A meat-inclusive diet often comes with a side of environmental caveats, including livestock’s contribution to global warming, its contribution to deforestation, and the stress it places on a bevy of increasingly precious resources, from water to land. Now, a group of researchers want to add another concern to the meat-eater’s plate: worldwide species extinction.

According to a recent study published in Science of the Total Environment by researchers at Florida International University in Miami, livestock production’s impact on land use is “likely the leading cause of modern species extinctions” — a problem the researchers think will only get worse as population growth increases the global demand for meat.

The study is particularly interesting to scientists because research linking livestock’s relationship to biodiversity loss has been lacking, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at Bard College who was not involved in the study, told Science.

“Now we can say, only slightly fancifully: You eat a steak, you kill a lemur in Madagascar. You eat a chicken, you kill an Amazonian parrot,” Eshel said.

To understand livestock production’s impact on biodiversity, researchers at Florida International University mapped areas that have exceptionally high percentages of native plants and animal species — known as biodiversity hotspots.

The researchers then mapped areas where livestock production is expected to increase in the future, and determined how much land would be lost as a result of expanding meat operations, using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization and other studies about historic livestock production and land use conversion in those areas. Then, they compared the biodiversity hotspots with the expected expansion of meat production.

They found that of the areas expected to have the greatest conversion of land use for agriculture — from forest to land dedicated to livestock production — 15 were in “megadiverse” countries that have the greatest diversity of species. The study concludes that in the 15 “megadiverse countries,” land used for livestock production will likely increase by 30 to 50 percent — some 3,000,000 square kilometers (about 741 million acres).

“These changes will have major, negative impacts on biodiversity,” Brian Machovina, the study’s lead author, told Science. “Many, many species will be lost.”

Several studies have suggested that the Earth is currently in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, caused largely by human activities. Animals are hunted and sold for trade, climate change is disrupting migration and mating patterns, extreme weather is threatening animal populations, and deforestation is fragmenting crucial habitat. But all of those causes, Machovina and his colleagues claim, pale in comparison to the threat of habitat loss driven by demand for meat, which the study claims “will cause more extinctions than any other factor.”

And though meat consumption in the United States has fallen steadily since peaking in the 1970s, meat consumption worldwide continues to rise, driven by technological advancements, liberalized trade, and growing economies. Livestock production is also an incredibly important source of economic security for millions of the world’s poor, providing stable income for 987 million around the world.

Machovina and his colleagues do suggest some mitigation efforts that could curb the loss of biodiversity from meat production — namely, eat less meat. The study says that in order to limit the worst biodiversity losses, the average diet should get no more than 10 percent of its calories from meat, and that pork, chicken, and fish are less resource-intensive options for meat eaters.

But while meat production can have a negative impact on species biodiversity and climate change, it’d be unwise to quit meat production altogether, Clayton Marlow, a grassland ecologist at Montana State University, Bozeman, told Science. He argues that the real issue facing biodiversity loss isn’t the expansion of meat production, but the expansion of urban sprawl, which takes away land that could potentially be used for agricultural production.

Tags

AgricultureClimate Changeland use

The post Meat-Eaters Are The Number One Cause Of Worldwide Species Extinction, New Study Warns appeared first on ThinkProgress.

California Lost $5 Billion In Public Pension Funds Billion Due To Fossil Fuel Investments Last Year

California’s public pension funds lost $5 billion last year through declines in their fossil fuel investments, according to a new report from Trillium Asset Management.

The losses for CalPERS and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System were largely due to the price of coal and oil falling between July 2014 and June 2015, the group found. The report comes amid increasing calls — and proposed legislation — for fossil fuel divestment.

“It’s important to see that fossil fuels in general, and coal in particular, are risky bets for the pension system,” Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst with 350.org, which advocates for divestment, said in a statement. “When folks are saying divestment is risky, we can say, ‘Well, not divesting is risky.'”

California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D) introduced a bill earlier this year as part of the Senate’s “climate package” that would require both funds to divest from companies that derive at least half their revenue from coal mining. The package passed the state Senate in the spring, and de León’s bill, S.B. 185, is expected to be considered by the Assembly later this month. The two funds represent pensions for nearly 2.6 million Californians.

Trillium’s analysis found that the coal stocks in the funds declined 25 percent during the 12-month period.

“These freshly incurred losses starkly demonstrate coal’s financial risk, and illustrate the potential benefits of S.B. 185 to California pensioners,” Will Lana, a partner at Trillium, said in a statement. Trillium is an employee-owned investment management fund with an emphasis on sustainable and responsible investing.

Coal in particular has been experiencing a long decline. Efforts to curb carbon emissions from the electricity sector — about 77 percent of which come from coal-fired power plants — have made investing in coal generation risky and expensive. Meanwhile, the industry has struggled to compete against the natural gas boom. Several coal companies declared bankruptcy in the past year alone.

California’s pension funds would hardly be the first major holdings to move away from coal. Several universities, religious groups, and even a major insurance company have all stopped investing in coal. The Norwegian parliament voted in June to remove coal investments from that country’s public pension fund, thought to be the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.

Divestment is seen by some as one of the most effective ways of reducing the profitability of fossil fuel industries.

Ted Nace, founder of CoalSwarm, an open-source reference on coal and an Earth Island Institute project, told ThinkProgress that finance has been an important driver in the cancellation of new coal plants worldwide. “The international community has very much been a factor in the slowdown, through finance,” he said in March. “The divestment movement has been a large part of what’s created a negative business climate for coal investment.”

The Trillium report may help build momentum for the divestment movement in California.

“On behalf of teachers across the state, I have been urging CalSTRS to take our investments out of fossil fuels,” Jane Vosburg, a California State Teachers’ Retirement System member and organizer with Fossil Fuel California, said. “Financial experts have long warned about the high risk of fossil fuel investments. Teachers’ pension funds should not be invested in an industry that threatens human civilization. Morally, divestment is the right thing to do; financially it’s the smart thing to do.”

Tags

CaliforniacalpersCoalDivestmentkevin de leonsb

The post California Lost $5 Billion In Public Pension Funds Billion Due To Fossil Fuel Investments Last Year appeared first on ThinkProgress.

‘Godzilla El Niño’ Plus Carbon Pollution Equals Global Warming Speed-Up

NASA oceanographer Bill Patzert called the intensifying El Niño, “Godzilla.” A NOAA research scientist called it “Bruce Lee” in July, and, by August, she said that what’s coming is “Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious.”

Whatever you call it, the short-term burst of regional warming in the tropical Pacific (from the monster El Niño) combined with the strong underlying long-term global warming trend means that 2015 will easily be the hottest year on record — blowing past the record just set in 2014. And if the global temperature pattern repeats that of the last super El Niño (1997-1998), then 2016 could well top 2015 record. Here’s why.

First, as a 2010 NASA study explained, the 12-month running mean global temperature tends to lag the temperature in the key Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific “by 4 months.” El Niño (and La Niña) are typically defined as positive (and negative) sustained sea surface temperature anomalies greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean’s Nino 3.4 region. More details here.

[image error]

The key Nino 3.4 region.

CREDIT: NOAA

Second, in its monthly ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) update released last week, NOAA reported, “All multi-model averages predict a strong event at its peak in late fall/early winter.” NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) went on to explain, “At this time, the forecaster consensus unanimously favors a strong El Niño, with peak 3-month SST departures in the Niño 3.4 region potentially near or exceeding +2.0°C.”

As of Sunday, the ensemble mean prediction of NCEP’s Climate Forecast System (CFS) looks like this:

[image error]

Again, the peak in the 12-month running average of global temperatures generally occurs four months after the Niño 3.4 region peak. As you can see, that region is already much warmer than it was four months ago. That in turn means the running 12-month global temperature — though already at the highest level on record — is all but certain to keep rising for the rest of the year, with 2015 blowing out the previous calendar year record set in 2014.

If the Niño 3.4 region peak is in the November–December timeframe as forecast, then the record for the hottest twelve-month period may not be set until early spring 2016. Then the question of whether 2016 beats 2015 will depend on how quickly the El Niño dissipates — and whether (and how quickly) it transitions to a La Niña, as typically happens at the end of strong El Niños.

Climatologist Kevin Trenberth has explained that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.” Over 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has sped up recently.

Trenberth has been expecting a jumpof up to half a degree Fahrenheit, which could occur “relatively abruptly.” He told ClimateProgress back in April that it’s significant the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) “seems to have gone strongly positive” because that is “perhaps the best single indicator to me that a jump is imminent.”

The PDO is a “pattern of Pacific climate variability similar to ENSO in character, but which varies over a much longer time scale.” The PDO can remain in one phase almost exclusively for a decade or even longer, as this figure from NOAA’s August “Global Ocean Monitoring” report shows:

[image error]

“Positive PDO has persisted 13 months since July 2014 and PDO index =1.5 in July 2015.” Via NOAA

Now compare the PDO chart with this NASA global temp chart update to include the record temperatures from July:

[image error]

You can see that a negative PDO temporarily offsets the long-term global warming trend, whereas a positive PDO brings a “catch up” phase (see discussion here). That is one reason, Trenberth explains, that global temperatures seem to look more like a staircase than a ramp (a steadily-rising straight-line or linear trend).

The last time global temperatures jumped sharply, it was during an extended period of positive PDO, from 1992 and 1998, ending in the monster El Niño of 1997-1998, which set a new global temperature record by a wide margin. That became a high bar for later years to match, which cherry-picking climate science deniers used — with some success — to persuade conservative politicians and media outlets that global warming had paused or slowed down. In fact we have merely been in an extended period of the PDO negative phase, with only occasional switches to a mild positive phase. And that, coupled with some recent La Niñas, gave an appearance of a short-term slowdown in warming in some datasets.

But the NASA chart highlights the fact there has been no actual slowdown in warming. Indeed the March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change” makes clear the only “pause” there has been was in the long-expected speed-up of global warming. The rate of surface warming should have started to accelerate in the past decade, rather than stay fairly constant.

The authors warned that, by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system into a regime of rapid multi-decadal rates of warming — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s. They project that within the next few years, “there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.”

That accelerated warming appears to starting now.

Tags

Climate ChangeEl NinoNASANOAA

The post ‘Godzilla El Niño’ Plus Carbon Pollution Equals Global Warming Speed-Up appeared first on ThinkProgress.