Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 83

$20 Million Prize Aims To Get Contestants To Turn Carbon Pollution To Something Useful

Carbon pollution from power plants is a big problem — when power plants burn fossil fuels, they increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in turn driving global climate change. And while new domestic policies and international negotiations are doing their best to curb the amount of carbon emitted from coal and natural gas-fired power plants, global energy demands are expected to grow 37 percent by 2040, with three quarters of that demand supplied by oil, gas, and coal. In short, the problem of carbon pollution from power plants isn’t set to disappear anytime soon.

Some might look at that problem and feel discouraged. XPrize Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to bringing about breakthroughs that benefit humanity, looked at the problem of carbon solution and saw an opportunity.

“Some of the biggest problems out there often require new ideas, but they also require the incentive to act,” Paul Bunje, principal and senior scientist for energy and environment at XPrize, told ThinkProgress. “Environmental challenges are among the planet’s greatest grand challenges. We look at it through a lens of the idea that we can solve this problem.”

Some of the biggest problems out there often require new ideas, but they also require the incentive to act

To solve the problem of carbon pollution, XPrize is teaming up with two big players from the energy industry — the U.S.-based NRG and Canada’s Oil Sands Industry Alliance (COSIA) — to fund a competition aimed at incentivizing the creation of technology that turns carbon emissions into a useable product, be it building materials, cement, plastic, or some other manifestation. The competition, which is open to expert scientists and novices alike, will last four and a half years and offer participants two tracks — one that makes the most of CO2 pollution from coal plants, and the other from gas plants. In the end, the winning teams will be awarded $10 million each — a $20 million total that Bunje hopes will inspire meaningful change in the world.

“We’ll get the solution to converting CO2 into a usable product,” Bunje said. “But at the same time, you can imagine this would help inspire others to think about other solutions to other parts of the problem.”

Bunje said that XPrize first got the idea for a competition based on the problem of carbon pollution while working on a previous competition, the Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPrize, which was awarded this July. That competition offered $2 million to whichever group could most successfully develop sensors that measure ocean acidification — the lowering of ocean pH that occurs when the ocean absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. The winning group — Sunburst Sensors, a small company from Montana — was able to develop a relatively cheap sensor that could detect ocean acidification at extreme depths. Burke Hales, a chemical oceanographer from Oregon State University, told ThinkProgress that the invention was a “step forward” for the industry, making ocean acidification sensors more affordable, and therefore more readily available, to researchers everywhere.

When we talk about what’s possible, we’re looking at what is on the edge of that horizon

In attempting to combat ocean acidification, however, Bunje said that XPrize kept stumbling on a larger issue: the carbon pollution that was ultimately driving the acidification of the world’s oceans.

“What do you do about the ultimate cause of ocean acidification, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere?” Bunje asked.

So XPrize — along with two industry backers — decided to take a slightly novel approach to carbon dioxide emissions. What if, instead of treating excess carbon dioxide as a waste product, it was treated like a raw material?

“We’re going to flip it on its head and incentivize people to turn CO2 into something they can sell,” Bunje said.

Capturing the carbon dioxide produced by power plants isn’t a new idea — some scientists have championed carbon capture and storage (CCS), which takes carbon pollution from power plants and pumps it into underground storage, as a necessary part of any climate change solution. But there are also numerous issues with CCS, including financial and technological barriers, challenges of scale, and the potential for earthquakes caused by pumping carbon underground. And some companies are already trying to make products out of carbon pollution, from plastics to building materials to major chemicals. But Bunje hopes that the contest will push innovators to approach the problem of carbon pollution in new ways, helping to make the materials cheaper, the products easier to make, or the technology more accessible.

“When we talk about what’s possible, we’re looking at what is on the edge of that horizon,” Bunje said. “With respect to environmental issues and things like CO2 and climate change, what you’re looking at is a whole bunch of reasons that too much CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. We can tackle those things, and XPrize is here to incentivize new players, as well as old players, to take their best shot.”

The more we can inspire — that’s where the real impact comes from

The competition’s source of funding — from companies that make their money burning fossil fuels — might raise some eyebrows, though turning carbon emissions into a usable product makes sense for businesses looking to profit off of something that is otherwise considered a waste product at best and a liability at worst.

“It’s a way of harnessing a global set of innovators to re-imagine carbon and change it from a liability into a resource, change it from a waste into a usable, valuable product,” COSIA’s chief executive Dan Wicklum said in a video statement after the contest was announced.

Ostensibly, turning carbon emissions into a usable product could also help fossil fuel industries sidestep regulations that treat carbon emissions like a pollutant.

The contest has been met with a healthy dose of skepticism by some climate scientists, who argue that the relatively unproven and expensive technology of carbon capture isn’t as effective as transitioning to a renewable-heaby, carbon-free energy system.

“Frankly, I’m skeptical that with the combined cost of carbon capture and manufacturing, such technologies could compete in a level marketplace with other carbon-friendly (i.e. renewable) energy technologies, but the challenge is a welcome one,” Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University told Climate Central.

But Bunje argues that a global problem like carbon pollution requires a diverse approach, and that turning carbon into a usable product could be one tool in the arsenal of possible solutions.

“A grand challenge, be it poverty or climate change, is rarely a single problem,” Bunje said. “The more we can inspire — that’s where the real impact comes from.”

Tags

Climate ChangeInnovationXPRIZE

The post $20 Million Prize Aims To Get Contestants To Turn Carbon Pollution To Something Useful appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Bernie Sanders Calls For Federal Investigation Of Exxon

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants ExxonMobil investigated by the Department of Justice.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday, Sanders charged the oil giant of engaging in a cover-up to intentionally mislead the public about the reality of human-caused climate change, and by extension the risks of its carbon-intensive product.

“It appears that Exxon knew its product was causing harm to the public, and spent millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts in the public discourse,” Sanders wrote. “The information that has come to light about Exxon’s past activities raises potentially serious concerns that should be investigated.”

The information Sanders cited was a recent investigation by Inside Climate News, which found that the ExxonMobil conducted research as far back as 1977 affirming that climate change is caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels. At the same time, the oil giant gave millions of dollars to politicians and organizations that promote climate science denial, and spent millions more lobbying to prevent regulations to limit carbon emissions.

Sanders, like many, compared the allegations against ExxonMobil to the DOJ’s massive and successful lawsuit against the tobacco industry. That action found that a number of big tobacco companies engaged in racketeering by conspiring to hide the harmful impacts of smoking from the public.

In an interview with ThinkProgress on Monday, the attorney who prosecuted that case against the tobacco industry said an investigation into ExxonMobil by the DOJ is “plausible and should be considered.”

You can read Sanders’ letter in full here:

Sanders Letter To Attorney General Requesting Investigation Into Exxon Mobil Climate Denial

Tags

Bernie SandersClimate ChangeElection 2016ExxonExxonMobil

The post Bernie Sanders Calls For Federal Investigation Of Exxon appeared first on ThinkProgress.

These World Leaders Agree: We Need A Price On Carbon

The cost of carbon is having a moment, with economists, environmentalists, and even the pope supporting a price on carbon emissions.

And on Monday, the World Bank announced a high-level group, the Carbon Pricing Panel, which brings together heads of state, local leaders, and business executives. The luminaries, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Philippines President Benigno Aquino III, and California Gov. Jerry Brown, are calling on policymakers and negotiators to use carbon pricing mechanisms, setting the stage for strengthening emissions reduction plans expected at the United Nations conference in December.

“There has never been a global movement to put a price on carbon at this level and with this degree of unison,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said in a statement.

The only approach that would work is an across-the-board rising carbon fee covering every fossil fuel at the source

Putting a price on carbon uses a standard economic tool and is broadly favored by economists as an efficient and effective way of reducing emissions. How it will be implemented worldwide remains to be seen. Some climate activists worry that some programs will push emissions down far too slowly to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

“The only approach that would work is an across-the-board rising carbon fee covering every fossil fuel at the source — the first sale at the domestic mine or port of entry,” Jim Hansen, a leading climate scientist, told ThinkProgress. “If the collected funds were distributed to the public, an equal amount to each legal resident, the economy would be stimulated, most people could make money, and fossil fuel use would go down rapidly. I call this fee-and-dividend, as opposed to cap-and-trade. It is not a tax, because the government gets no money, the government does not grow bigger.”

In fact, there are a number of ways carbon pricing can be leveraged to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax — or fee — requires emitters to pay, usually into a dedicated fund, for each ton of carbon they put out. That money can be redistributed to offset higher energy costs (revenue-neutral) or can be redirected towards efficiency and clean energy programs, further lowering emissions.

Cap-and-trade schemes, another mechanism, place limits on emissions but allow entities to trade their credits, creating an emissions credit market. Cap-and-trade generally involves more government oversight.

“The hokey cap-and-trade system allows graft and giveaways and necessarily brings big banks into the multi-trillion dollar energy industry. Big banks add nothing — every single dollar that they make comes out of the public’s hide in higher energy prices — but once you have trading they are in the game,” Hansen said.

Domestically, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, has been a successful example of cap-and-trade, lowering how much participating states pay for electricity while bolstering clean energy development. An international scheme developed under the Kyoto Protocol served to lower emissions in Europe, but also exposed itself as a victim of corruption and limited oversight.

The pitfalls of cap-and-trade make some climate

It’s generally accepted that, globally, there is no one-size-fits-all approach that will work. This means different approaches will be required and different outcomes will be valued.

But one key element of the World Bank panel — and the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, an advisory group which will officially launch at the beginning of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris on November 30 — is that they represent a broad range of interests.

Joe Robertson, the global strategy director at Citizens’ Climate Lobby, said that the structure of the coalition lends itself to offering better solutions.

“It’s been an incredibly inclusive process,” Robertson told ThinkProgress. “It’s a breakthrough where you have nonprofits like Citizens’ Climate Lobby and [the Environmental Defense Fund] sitting at the table with Shell.”

Having all these voices can help develop the best approaches for pricing carbon, he said. Not only can different localities — such as California — share their expertise with other economies, but different viewpoints could help develop more acceptable plans. “You can’t change things if four billion people in the world have some vested interest in fossil fuels,” Robertson said.

It’s a breakthrough where you have nonprofits like Citizens’ Climate Lobby and [the Environmental Defense Fund] sitting at the table with Shell

In fact, in June, six massive European oil and gas companies called for a carbon tax. Ostensibly, that’s a huge step forward, but some have expressed doubts about the group’s sincerity.

“If they are serious, they should be turning their considerable political interests toward eliminated subsidies,” Alden Myer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told ThinkProgress.

Worldwide, fossil fuel subsidies cost governments $5.3 trillion a year, according to the International Monetary Fund. In the United States, fossil fuel subsidies go largely to producers — oil and gas exploration costs are hugely written off, for instance. And American oil and gas companies are not in the practice — so far — of lobbying against their financial interests.

But in many other nations, including developing nations and places that have huge oil reserves, subsidies are at the consumer end, which means reducing subsidies can lead to public outcry. These existing subsidies make it more difficult to accurately price carbon — since the market is already distorted.

But Myer applauded the formation of the Climate Pricing Panel. “Obviously, carbon pricing is a very important tool. It’s not the only tool, but it’s an essential tool,” he said.

And as more and more leaders — from the Philippines to Germany, and from Shell to the World Bank — speak out on carbon pricing, the targets expected out of the Paris conference may become more in reach.

“What would be great to see from this initiative would be much greater activation of those political and business leader voices… talking about the need for carbon pricing,” Myer said. “Lord knows there is enough on the other side.”

Tags

carbon pricingcost of carbonIMFsubsidiesWorld Bank

The post These World Leaders Agree: We Need A Price On Carbon appeared first on ThinkProgress.

This Is About As Mad As The Dalai Lama Gets

The Dalai Lama on Tuesday called for action on climate change as part of a newly launched campaign by the Tibetan government in exile, showing support for a strong agreement at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference in Paris this December.

“There is no other planet where we may move,” the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader said in a video posted on YouTube. “This is our only home.”

“This is not a political matter, not a religious matter, but ultimately [about] the survival of humanity,” he said.

The Dalai Lama has been an outspoken advocate for the environment for years. This summer, he praised the pope’s encyclical on climate change.

Religious calls for action on climate change have been growing in recent years — and have been coming from all corners of the globe. Two months before the encyclical was issued, 100 Catholic and Evangelical leaders ran a full-page ad in Politico Magazine saying there is a “moral obligation” to act, and calling for congressional action. Muslim leaders issued a declaration in August calling for leaders at madrasas and mosques to address the need to help curb global warming.

The Dalai Lama’s video kicked off a government campaign, Tibet Climate Action for the Roof of the World. The campaign “is to urge the international community and world leaders gathering in Paris to recognize the Tibetan Plateau’s importance to the environmental health of the planet and to make Tibet central to global climate change discussions,” the government said.

Last year, researchers found that glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau are “virtually being decapitated” by warming. In the nearby Himalayan range, glaciers have shrunk 21 percent in the past three decades.

More than a billion people depend on water that runs out of the mountains in Tibet, the Dalai Lama said. “The projections or serious concerns of projections about the Tibetan environment are not only a concern for people from that area, but for a large number of people on this planet.”

The Tibetan Plateau is the third largest store of glaciers and the world’s largest source of fresh water. The region is experiencing temperature rise three times greater than the global average, the exiled government reported.

Tags

climateClimate Changedalai lamaReligionvideo

The post This Is About As Mad As The Dalai Lama Gets appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Will Canada’s New Prime Minister Turn His Campaign Promises Into Climate Action?

The votes are in, and Stephen Harper is out.

Canadians voted the country’s Liberal Party into power Monday, results that ushered in Liberal leader Justin Trudeau as prime minister and spelled the end for Conservative Stephen Harper’s nine-year run in the role. Harper now heads up the country’s Official Opposition, as his party came in second place ahead of Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party.

Harper’s policies had turned him into something of a villain in climate and environmental circles. His government staunchly supported the tar sands industry, and he’s long backed the construction of Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines. His administration’s treatment of scientists — the Conservative Party’s 2007 rules on Environment Canada scientists’ media interactions ended up reducing scientists’ discussions with the media on climate change by 80 percent — was condemned as “muzzling,” and led one Environment Canada scientist to pen an anti-Harper folk song (sample lyrics: “Well who reveres Uncle Sam? Says our future lies in oil sands?”).

They’re saying really exciting and interesting things that we haven’t heard in this country in a decade, but they haven’t been specific

But now, with Trudeau taking over the reins as prime minister, many are hopeful that Canada’s environmental path will shift. There are still a lot of unknowns about exactly how a Liberal government will tackle environmental issues, Erin Flanagan, an analyst at the Pembina Institute, told ThinkProgress. The Liberal Party’s platform includes a tenet to create “a national environmental strategy that embraces scientific evidence and accepts the reality of human-caused climate change,” policy which would help keep warming under 2°C and ensure that Canada contributes to its “fair share” of emissions reductions.

“But [Liberals] haven’t said specifically what that means in terms of emissions targets,” Flanagan said. “They’re saying really exciting and interesting things that we haven’t heard in this country in a decade, but they haven’t been specific.”

The party’s been asked to provide numbers for emissions reductions targets, but it hasn’t yet done so, she said. Canada pledged earlier this year to reduce its emissions 30 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, but that commitment was criticized by many as not being ambitious enough. Flanagan said that, ideally, a Liberal government would change that commitment to be more aggressive.

“Canada at any point could say, ‘We actually want to be the most aggressive country in world,” she said. Trudeau’s party won a majority government at Monday’s election, securing 184 of Canada’s 338 seats. They were elected, Flanagan said “with the resounding confidence of the country. They can do whatever they want to — there’s no good reason why they wouldn’t go through with that process.”

Trudeau has said he’ll work to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and supports a ban on oil tankers off of British Columbia’s North Coast. He also says he wants to create a national carbon pricing system that gives provinces freedom to set their own emissions reduction goals. What that design doesn’t address, Flanagan said, is how the government will ensure that provinces like Alberta — home to the tar sands — are setting ambitious enough targets. That’s a “critical question” for Canada, she said, because much of Canada’s success in emissions reductions depends on the regulation of the tar sands industry. In 2014, Canada’s energy sector surpassed transportation as the largest-emitting sector, largely because of tar sands production.

Trudeau’s come under fire from environmentalists because of his support for the Keystone XL pipeline; support that’s partly why renowned Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki reportedly refused to endorse Trudeau. Trudeau does oppose Canada’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry tar sands from Alberta to British Columbia, but hasn’t said one way or another whether he supports the Energy East pipeline, which would carry the oil to refineries in Eastern Canada.

Flanagan said that it’ll be important to see how a Trudeau government treats the pipeline process. Trudeau has called for more safety when building new energy infrastructure, and the Liberal Party platform includes a pledge to make “environmental assessments credible again.”

“Right out of the gate we know the Liberals see this as a problem and want to make the pipeline review process more credible,” which is a major change from the Harper government, Flanagan said. But as Trudeau’s come out in support of some pipelines but not others, it’s not clear whether all pipelines will be held to the same standards.

In terms of renewable energy, Trudeau’s party has pledged to create the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which will provide financing and bonds to infrastructure and renewable energy projects. The party has also said it will invest $100 million each year into clean technology producers, and $200 million each year to “support innovation” in multiple industries, including energy and mining.

Nick Blitterswyk, CEO of renewable energy solutions company UGE, said he was hopeful about the future of renewables in Canada under a Trudeau government.

Canada at any point could say, ‘We actually want to be the most aggressive country in world

“It’s clear that the environment played a big role in this election, and we’ll be watching to see how Trudeau commits to combating climate change and investing in green infrastructure,” he said in a statement to ThinkProgress. “We know renewable energy has huge potential in Canada, if only we can get the right policies behind it. In places like Ontario, where there is a feed-in tariff, we’ve seen the solar market explode. With the Liberals taking back a majority of the government, we look forward to clean energy being put back at the top of the agenda.”

Change was a central part of Trudeau’s campaign, and change is what environmentalists hope will come with his tenure.

“We hope our good neighbors’ new leaders will take real action on climate change by adopting a plan to meet its international climate commitments, stop the destructive expansion of tar sands, and open environmental decision-making to sound science and broad public review,” Anthony Swift, Canada project director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

Environmental groups are already planning to show Trudeau they’re serious about holding him accountable on climate change: 350.org, which said in a statement that Trudeau needed to “put a freeze on new tar sands development and respect the rights of indigenous and First Nations communities in Canada,” said that they were planning on holding four days of sit-ins in Ottawa in the coming weeks.

And Canadians — as well as people around the world who are watching Canada’s next moves on the environment — won’t have to wait long to see how their new government will differ from Harper’s. Flanagan said the real test for the Liberal government will come during the Paris climate talks, which are slated to begin at the end of November.

“How is Canada going to show up in Paris with a government that’s made some rhetorical statements on 2 degrees but hasn’t backed it up in terms of policies?” she said. “These negotiations are happening really soon and I think Canadians expect this government is going to be different in prioritizing its approach to Paris talks.”

Tags

CanadaClimate Change

The post Will Canada’s New Prime Minister Turn His Campaign Promises Into Climate Action? appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who prosecuted and won the massive racketeering case against Big Tobacco thinks the agency should consider investigating Big Oil for similar claims: engaging in a cover-up to mislead the public about the risks of its product.

Sharon Eubanks, who now works for the firm Bordas & Bordas, told ThinkProgress that ExxonMobil and other members of the fossil fuel industry could be held liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) if it’s discovered that the companies worked together to suppress knowledge about the reality of human-caused climate change. She said that, considering recent revelations regarding ExxonMobil, the DOJ should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies.

I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered.

“I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered,” she said.

Eubanks’ comments come a few days after two House Democrats urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to launch an investigation into ExxonMobil for hiding the results of its own climate change research. Recent investigations from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times discovered that ExxonMobil conducted research in 1977 affirming that climate change was caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, yet continued to fund politicians and organizations that deny climate science and work to prevent regulations limiting carbon emissions.

Many have compared the situation to the actions of the tobacco industry. In 2006, a federal judge found that the big tobacco companies colluded to “deceive the public” about the health hazards of smoking, which amounted to a racketeering enterprise. The reason they did it, Eubanks said, was to avoid health regulations and save money.

“The cigarette companies actively denied the harm of cigarette smoking, and concealed the results of what their own research developed,” she said. “The motivation was money, and to avoid regulation.”

It appears to me … that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change.

Based on the revelations about ExxonMobil, Eubanks said the Department of Justice should consider investigating whether similar collusion occurred among big fossil fuel companies and other high-carbon-emitting industries that would profit from climate denial.

“It appears to me, based on what we know so far, that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change,” Eubanks said. “They were actively denying the impact of human-caused carbon emissions, even when their own research showed otherwise.”

In addition to giving millions of dollars to politicians and groups that deny climate science, ExxonMobil helped found the Global Climate Coalition, “an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions,” according to Inside Climate. Exxon’s company leaders also argued against the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to fight climate change which the U.S. refused to sign. Exxon reportedly advised then-President George W. Bush not to sign it.

Critics say ExxonMobil did this while knowing full well the risks of climate change, which is expected to include the displacement of millions of people and even the erasure of some low-lying island nations.

Because of this, calls for a DOJ investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies are getting louder. Last week, Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley tweeted his support for an investigation, drawing yet another parallel to the tobacco industry.

“We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let’s do the same for oil companies and climate change.”

“We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer,” O’Malley said. “Let’s do the same for oil companies and climate change.”

However, Eubanks warned that if the charge is anything like the tobacco case, a DOJ investigation would need bi-partisan support — or a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House — to be successful. She recalled dealing with a Republican-controlled Congress during the prosecution of the tobacco industry, and then later, a Republican president who did not want to see the industry hurt.

“We filed the case under the Clinton administration, and we struggled with budget issues — many of the Republicans pushed hard to push us down,” Eubanks said.

After Bush was elected, the environment at the DOJ worsened. “They were trying to choke the case off,” she said. “It was a long time ago, but i still get queasy feeling when I think about working seven-day weeks all the time, and a nine-month trial, to see these people trying to kill the case.”

She did eventually win the case, but at a cost, Eubanks said. Instead of the $130 billion her team had sought, Bush administration loyalists pushed her team to seek only $10 billion, she said.

“This is more important than just running a case.”

Still, Eubanks stressed than a similar investigation into ExxonMobil could be worthwhile under any political circumstances — even if it’s to find out that there’s not enough evidence to bring a lawsuit at all.

“I can’t tell you that it clears every hurdle,” she said. “I’m not an environmental lawyer. But I know it’s important…This is more important than just running a case. That much I’m sure of.”

Tags

Climate ChangeDepartment of JusticeExxonExxonMobilFossil FuelsMartin O'MalleyTobaccoTobacco Industry

The post Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says appeared first on ThinkProgress.

How Canada’s Election Could Change The Course Of The Country’s Climate Policy

The debates are over and the protest songs have been sung. Now, Canadians are heading to the polls to vote in a federal election that could spell the end of Stephen Harper’s nine-year reign as prime minister. And that, environmentalists hope, could mean the end of the hostile environment towards climate science and environmental protection that some say Harper’s administration has created.

There are three major parties (along with a few smaller parties) in Monday’s election — the Conservative Party, which is headed by Prime Minister Harper; the Liberal Party, headed by Justin Trudeau, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) headed by Thomas Mulcair. Canadians will vote for their representative in the House of Commons, and the party with the most elected representatives will become the ruling party, with that party’s head as prime minister.

For almost a decade, that prime minister has been Harper, whose Conservative Party has won more seats than the other parties for the past three elections. But Harper hasn’t made many friends among environmentalists in Canada (or in the rest of the world). Harper, who in 2002 referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme,” withdrew from the international climate treaty in 2011 — making Canada the first country to withdraw from Kyoto. In 2007, the Conservative government developed new rules on how Environment Canada scientists were to interact with the media, rules that ended up reducing these scientists’ interactions with the media on climate change by 80 percent (and helped inspire at least one anti-Harper song). Harper’s government has been a strong supporter of Alberta’s tar sands industry — earlier this year, the Guardian reported that the Conservative Party had secretly spent millions of dollars on tar sands public relations and advertising campaigns. Harper’s government has also pushed hard for the construction of Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines.

[image error]

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper reviews the honor guard prior the meeting with Italian Premier Matteo Renzi in Rome, Thursday, June 11, 2015.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini

But Monday, Harper’s time as prime minister could come to an end. So far, the election is one of the closest ever in Canada, and polls don’t close until this evening. But right now the Liberal Party is leading by about 7 points over the Conservative Party.

So how would a victory for the Liberal Party change Canada’s tune on climate and environmental issues? Trudeau supports Keystone XL, but opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would bring tar sands crude from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. Since approval of the Keystone XL pipeline rests with President Obama, Trudeau’s opinion of the project doesn’t mean much in a practical sense, but it does show that he’s not opposed to building new tar sands pipelines as a rule. Trudeau also hasn’t taken a firm stance on the Energy East pipeline, which would carry tar sands crude from Alberta to Canada’s East Coast.

Trudeau has said that safety needs to be ensured when building new energy infrastructure.

“We know as an alternative to pipelines, we’ve seen oil by rail spike over the last few years with, in some cases, disastrous and even deadly consequences,” he said in September. “We need to ensure we are getting our resources to market in responsible, safe ways.”

Trudeau has criticized Harper’s environmental policy, hitting the prime minister for his environmental and economic decisions in a September debate.

“Mr. Harper continues to pretend that there is a choice between environment and economy. He chooses to say that you cannot build a strong economy if you’re protecting the environment — and that has been his failure,” Trudeau said. “He hasn’t gotten pipelines built. He has made the oil sands an international pariah.”

[image error]

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau.

CREDIT: shutterstock

Trudeau’s plans for energy and the environment include inviting all of Canada’s premiers to attend the U.N. climate talks in Paris this year, and holding a first ministers’ meeting on climate change after the talks to develop a plan for emissions reductions. He also said he will act on a G20 pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. He says he’ll ban oil tankers off of British Columbia’s North Coast, and invest $200 million every year on clean technology strategies. He’s also said that he’d create a national carbon pricing system if he becomes prime minister.

Mulcair’s NDP is trailing behind the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the polls, but he hasn’t given up hope of an NDP victory. Mulcair doesn’t support Keystone XL or the Northern Gateway pipeline, and he made that opposition clear in an August debate. He and Trudeau agree on their disdain for Harper’s environmental policies.

“Mr. Harper thought that by gutting our environmental laws, somehow he could get our energy resources to market better,” Mulcair said at the debate. “How’s that working out, Mr. Harper?”

“Canadians across the country want a clear, thorough, credible environmental assessment process,” he continued. “Canada can be a leader around the world. We can play a positive role. But with Mr. Harper, we’ve got the worst of all worlds.”

Mulcair has called for a more rigorous review process for pipelines. He promised in 2013 to “redirect a billion dollars a year in fossil fuel subsidies, and re-invest that money in clean energy,” and earlier this year, the NDP introduced a bill that would require Canada to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. He said in October that an NDP government would invest $200 million to make 50,000 homes and 15,000 apartments more energy efficient, and would invest $150 million into helping local governments transition into more sustainable forms of building and transit.

“After a decade of time wasted under Stephen Harper, we need a prime minister with the long-term vision to fight climate change,” he said.

That’s not just empty rhetoric: Harper’s inaction on climate change has had consequences for Canada. A report last year warned that the country wasn’t on track to meet its 2020 emissions reduction targets. The report, put together by Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, found that, if federal action isn’t taken, the country’s greenhouse gas emissions output will remain nearly the same as it was in 2005. Canada announced its 2030 emissions reduction pledge earlier this year — a target of 30 percent reduction in emissions compared to 2005 levels that environmentalists said didn’t go far enough.

Canada’s environmental policy has lagged under Harper, but research has shown that Canada could be a leader in energy and environmental policy with strong federal action — which is part of the reason why Monday’s election is so high-stakes. A report published in March by 70 Canadian academics found that Canada had the potential to get 100 percent of its electricity from low-carbon sources by 2035 and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The government could achieve these goals by putting a price on carbon and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

“Clearly the current Canadian federal government has absolutely no interest in pursuing these paths — that’s become painfully apparent,” Mark Winfield, associate professor of environmental studies at York University in Toronto, told ThinkProgress in March.

That could begin to change after Monday, however.

Tags

CanadaClimate Change

The post How Canada’s Election Could Change The Course Of The Country’s Climate Policy appeared first on ThinkProgress.

America’s Companies Keep Pledging To Reduce Emissions

President Obama hosted a roundtable for CEOs from five Fortune 500 companies and five supply chain companies on Monday, as part of the the White House’s Act on Climate Initiative, which urges businesses to make carbon-reduction pledges before the upcoming United Nations climate conference.

Leaders from Johnson & Johnson, Intel Corp., Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co., Hershey Co., and PG&E Corp., as well as five other companies that act as suppliers to those corporations, attended.

“This conversation has confirmed what we’ve known for quite some time, which is that considerations of climate change, energy efficiency, renewable energies are not only not contradictory to their bottom lines, but for these companies, they’re discovering that they can enhance their bottom lines,” Obama said in remarks released after the meeting.

Mars, Nike, and Bloomberg are among the companies that announced new carbon-reduction targets. As of Monday, 81 companies had signed on to the Act on Climate pledge, and more are expected, a White House official said.

Today’s announcements are a “significant milestone, but by no means the end,” Senior White House adviser Brian Deese said on a call with reporters Monday. So far, companies represented operate in all 50 states, employ more than 9 million people, and have more than $3 trillion in annual revenue, according to the White House.

We believe a focus on business and climate change can go hand in hand

The pledges are submitted by the companies and are tailored to their specific business practices. PG&E, a utility serving 16 million people, will achieve a 60 percent renewable mix by 2020. Nike announced that it would use 100 percent renewable energy in all its owned or operated facilities by 2025, while Nestle has water-reduction goals included in its pledge.

The prevailing message behind all the pledges, though, is that action on climate change is a boon to business.

“We believe a focus on business and climate change can go hand in hand,” Todd Brady, global environmental director for Intel, said on the call with reporters.

While American businesses might be coming around to that message, it has been more difficult to get Congress on board, despite the fact that Americans overwhelmingly accept the scientific conclusion that climate change is happening.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called Congress to task Monday, after the announcement.

“While I appreciate these efforts from corporate America for a good outcome in Paris and to reduce their own carbon footprints, in my experience none of this is filtering through to Congress in the form of lobbying or advocacy,” he said in a statement. He went on to suggest that advocacy from the business community is going to be critical in changing policy.

“The massive American corporate lobbying effort in Congress is at best silent on climate change, and at worst adamantly hostile,” Whitehouse said. “For that to change, these companies will have to take responsibility for the advocacy efforts of groups that represent them in Congress, and align their advocacy with their policy.”

The Obama administration has taken a number of steps to reduce carbon emissions without Congressional action. The Clean Power Plan, finalized this summer, requires states to figure out how they will reduce emissions from the electricity sector — which currently accounts for nearly a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The administration has also announced deals with China, Brazil, and India, all major polluters.

But how the international community will develop and enforce climate goals remains to be seen. Negotiators are in Bonn, Germany this week, hashing out final details before the Paris conference in December. Some have speculated that putting a price on carbon might be an option.

Melissa Lavinson, chief sustainability officer at PG&E, called a price on carbon “absolutely” something the country needs during a roundtable hosted by Ceres and Huffington Post on Monday.

Ann Kelly, a senior program director at Ceres, suggested putting a price on carbon — a mechanism that has been successfully deploying in New England, for example, would be the best way forward.

“It would be infinitely easier if we could put a price on carbon,” she said. “You tax the thing you don’t want. It’s that simple. And all the economists agree.”

The head of the International Monetary Fund called for such a system earlier this month.

Tags

Act on ClimatecarbonCeresClimate ChangeObamaPG&E

The post America’s Companies Keep Pledging To Reduce Emissions appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Obama Administration Cancels Oil Drilling Lease Sales In Arctic Ocean

The Interior Department has scrapped two lease sales for oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, a move that comes as a win for environmentalists who have fought to prevent oil development in the remote region.

The lease sales had been scheduled tentatively for 2016 and 2017 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The Interior Department’s Friday announcement comes a few weeks after Royal Dutch Shell announced that it would be stopping its oil exploration in the Arctic “for the foreseeable future,” due to a “challenging and unpredictable” regulatory environment and insufficient oil and gas discoveries. The Interior Department referenced Shell’s decision in its reasoning behind canceling the two lease sales.

“In light of Shell’s announcement, the amount of acreage already under lease and current market conditions, it does not make sense to prepare for lease sales in the Arctic in the next year and a half,” Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement.

Also on Friday, the Interior Department rejected attempts by oil companies Shell and Statoil to get more time to explore for oil under their existing leases in the Arctic, saying that neither company properly illustrated how it would take advantage of the extra exploration time.

Drilling in the Arctic has emerged as a major rallying point for environmentalists. This summer, activists hung from a bridge in Portland in an attempt to get a Shell oil ship bound for the Arctic to turn around — an effort that ultimately succeeded. And earlier this year, hundreds of Seattle protesters took to kayaks to protest Shell’s drilling plans.

Environmentalists praised the Interior Department’s announcement as a major step forward towards protecting the Arctic from oil and gas development.

“This is a historic decision to keep Arctic oil in the ground that will be felt for years to come. It’s great news for the Arctic and for everyone fighting against extreme fossil fuel projects,” Greenpeace spokesperson Travis Nichols said in a statement. “This is the right move for President Obama to secure his climate legacy through one of the most vulnerable places on Earth, but he can still do more by using his authority to withdraw the Arctic Ocean from future offshore oil drilling.”

Arctic drilling is worrying environmentally for multiple reasons. One is climate change: the Arctic is already warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the world is, and that warming — and the ice melt it’s caused — is opening up the Arctic to drilling that wasn’t before possible. But burning the oil developed from the Arctic will only lead to more warming: One study estimates that a third of the globe’s oil reserves must stay in the ground if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Another worry for environmentalists is the risk of spills. The Arctic region is remote, and its weather can be erratic, meaning that if a spill does occur, it could be difficult to clean up. And a spill isn’t unlikely: A Bureau of Ocean Management report found that there was a 75 percent chance of a spill greater than 1,000 barrels if an oil company began producing oil in the Arctic over the long term.

As of now, seven companies have drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea, but only Shell has explored for oil there. One company, Statoil, told Fuelfix that it was still figuring out how to act after the Interior Department’s announcement.

“As a result of the uncertainty, regulatory environment and high costs associated with offshore operations in Alaska, Statoil does not currently have a timeline for future activities,” Statoil spokesman Hakon Fonseca Nordang said.

Tags

Arctic DrillingClimate Change

The post Obama Administration Cancels Oil Drilling Lease Sales In Arctic Ocean appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Australia Approves Coal Mine That Environmentalists Call ‘A Complete Disaster’ For Coral Reef

Australia will soon be home to one of the world’s biggest coal mines, now that the government has given its approval for the controversial project.

This week, Australia’s government approved the Carmichael mine, a project that’s backed by India’s Adani Enterprises. Environmentalists have staunchly opposed the mine, which will be located in central Queensland, because they say the increase in coal shipping that the mine will spur threatens the Great Barrier Reef. And, they say, the emissions that will come from burning the coal will contribute to the ocean warming and acidification that’s already threatening the reef.

“Carmichael would be a complete disaster for the climate and the Great Barrier Reef,” Greenpeace Australia campaigner Shani Tager said in a statement Thursday. “The federal government and Environment Minister should be in the business of protecting the Reef and the climate, not giving mining companies licence to destroy them. This project means more dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, more ships through its waters and more carbon emissions.”

The mine had been previously approved by the government, but a court temporarily overturned that approval in August, saying that Australia’s environment minister Greg Hunt didn’t take into account his department’s advice on how the mine would affect two species — the yakka skink and ornamental snake — when he granted approval. Now, Hunt says, the project will be subject to “36 of the strictest conditions in Australian history.”

“The rigorous conditions will protect threatened species and provide long-term benefits for the environment through the development of an offset package,” Hunt said in a statement. “These measures must be approved by myself before mining can start.”

This project means more dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, more ships through its waters and more carbon emissions

The conditions state that groundwater near the mine must be monitored. They also include a mandate that 119 square miles of habitat for the black throated finch must be protected. Lawyers had argued earlier this year that interests behind the mine had understated its impact on the endangered finch and other flora and fauna in the region. Those lawyers said that the environmental costs associated with the coal mine far outweighed the economic benefits that the government was touting.

“In the circumstances, the risks of this proposal are just too great to justify it, particularly in light of the dramatically reduced economic benefits and very questionable viability of it,” lawyer Saul Holt said in May.

The economic benefits of the mine have also been questioned. With the price of coal as low as it is — coal prices have dropped 52 percent since 2011 — investing in another mine doesn’t make sense, some have said.

“On a standalone basis, the economics just don’t stack up — I’m talking about costs and return on capital,” Daniel Morgan, global commodities analyst at UBS, told Reuters last year. “You’d need a price of about $100-$110 a [metric ton] for it to stack up.”

Experts have also challenged the Adani Group’s advertisments boasting the creation of 10,000 jobs in Queensland from the mine. An analysis from Adani’s economic adviser, however, found that the project would likely only create 1,464 net jobs.

Most of Carmichael’s coal will be purchased by India — a country that’s third in the world in terms of carbon emissions. India has struggled to bring power to the hundreds of millions in the country that don’t have access to it, but it’s also struggled with the choking pollution — and pollution-related deaths — that comes along with burning coal.

Australia, for its part, has come under fire recently for its treatment of the Great Barrier Reef. Earlier this year, a study found that dumping dredging waste near the reef, which is the most extensive coral reef system on earth, is causing major damage to the ecosystem. In May, Australia banned dumping dredging waste from new projects in the reef’s waters. But the reef has already lost half of its coral cover over the last three decades, and it faces additional threats from ocean acidification and warming.In July, the U.N. decided not to list the reef as “in danger,” but said that Australia must make significant progress on its conservation plan for the reef by 2016.

Tags

AustraliaClimate ChangeCoalGreat Barrier Reef

The post Australia Approves Coal Mine That Environmentalists Call ‘A Complete Disaster’ For Coral Reef appeared first on ThinkProgress.