Chevron Protest: 14 Arrested at Mobilization for Climate Justice
Today, hundreds spent the day at programs organized by the Mobilization for Climate Justice-West and then made their way from Richmond’s BART station to the Chevron refinery to protest the dirty polluting practices of California’s largest corporation.
At the refinery, 14 entered onto the property, enacted a “die-in” and outlined their bodies with paint and chalk. They were then arrested by police.
– Hundreds of Richmond community members joined climate change advocates, public health experts, local government and labor leaders today in a colorful march, protest and non-violent civil disobedience at Chevron’s Richmond refinery. After a festival outside the Richmond BART station with music, dancers and speakers, and an hour-long march that wound through the city streets, a mass die-in and nonviolent civil disobedience took place at the refinery gates. Thirteen people were arrested.
The actions outside Chevron were organized by a new coalition–The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West–whose goals are to get Chevron to “cap the crude” at its Richmond refinery and to get al l corporations, including Chevron, out of the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Chevron wants to process heavier crude at its Richmond refinery. Refining heavier crude will result in more air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and disease.
“Chevron has the opportunity to do the right thing,” said Mayor of Richmond, Gayle McLaughlin. “They just need to agree to capping the crude at the level they currently refine. We want them to put Richmond’s residents to work modernizing and replacing the 80 year old boilers, which sadly they chose to remove from the project several months ago. ” “We want Chevron to build a cleaner and safer refinery,” said Ana Orozco of Communities for A Better Environment. “We want the union jobs to continue to build a refinery that is cleaner and safer for our community. Our community has been put at risk for too long.”
“Chevron has clearly attempted to drive a wedge between workers and the Richmond community in order to avoid being held accountable to the community’s demand for clean air and a healthy environment,” said Charles Smith, Chief Steward of AFSCME Local 444, “We support the community in this struggle.”
After a peaceful, celebratory march through the streets of Richmond, the marchers arrived at the gates of the refinery and were met with a heavy police presence. Participants staged a mass die-in while Suanu Bere of Nigeria, Nyunt Than of Burma, Nathan Brinley, a US veteran of the Iraq War, and speakers from Richmond described the death caused by Chevron and its operations around the world. “What is unique about Chevron is the network of Chevron-affected communities that have joined together in opposition to the brutality of the company’s operations,” said Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. “We are here with groups from across the Bay Area and around the world, banding together to create a mass people’s movement to achieve meaningful policy change to force Chevron and the entire oil industry to be cleaner, safer, more humane, and equitable everywhere.”
After the die-in, a “clean-up crew” entered into the refinery through the police barricade in an attempt to make the refinery cleaner and safer. Thirteen “cleaners” were arrested, including Reverend Kenneth Davis of Richmond, while rally participants supported them with chants and songs. The chalk outlines of the dead remained after the protesters left the refinery.
“The North Richmond community is on the frontline of Chevron’s chemical assault. We have experienced a lifetime of chemical exposure, asthma, cancer and death. These are human rights violations. West County Toxics Coalition will fight until there is no net increase in emission from the Chevron Hydrogen Expansion Project,” said Henry Clarke, the Executive Director of the West County Toxics Coalition.
The protest at Chevron was part of a campaign to generate political pressure and “s treet heat” leading up to the international climate change talks to be held in Copenhagen in December. Other protests will be held later in the year and in other parts of the country.
“People, not corporations, should drive the critical climate talks in Copenhagen,” said Ananda Lee Tan, a member of the Mobilization for Climate Justice spokescouncil and the U.S. Campaign Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “To date, at the United Nation’s climate talks, corporate lobbyists have outnumbered representatives of governments and civil society groups by a ratio of as high as 4 to 1. We want Chevron and all corpor ate lobbyists banned from, and frontline community voices represented at these talks.” “The MCJ seeks to empower community-based activist groups and networks to lead a global climate justice movement in confronting the root causes of climate change at home,” said Torm Nompraseurt of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, “while defining community priorities and self-determination pathways for a new energy economy.”
The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West includes more than 35 diverse groups: AFSCME Local 444, Amazon Watch, Art in Action, Asian-Pacific Environmental Network, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Bay Localize, Burmese American Democratic Association, Communities for a Better Environment, Contra Costa Greens, Direct Action to Stop the War, Earth First!, Environmental Justice & Climate Change Initiative, Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity (FACES), Forest Ethics, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Global Exchange, Global Justice Ecology Project, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Greenpeace, Headrush, International Forum on Globalization, International Rivers, Justice in Nigeria Now!, Movement Generation, Pacific Environment, Poor Magazine, Rainforest Action Network, Richmond Mayor’s Task Force on Environmental Justice and Health, Progressive Bengali Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Ruckus Society, Rising Tide North America, Solidarity, West County Toxics Coalition, Youth In Focus, 350.org
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Responding to Climate Change in the Red Sea
The Red Sea hosts one of the world's richest coral reef systems, an intricate one that exists near the threshold of the physiological temperature limits of corals. Elevated salinity levels and high seasonal temperature fluctuations mean that the Red Sea's reefs have evolved under extreme conditions. Mass coral bleaching has increased dramatically in its frequency and distribution over the past two decades as a result of climate change and other human impacts; almost every reef system in the world has been affected. Some climate change models have predicted up to 95% of the world's coral reefs may be lost by the end of this century. This threatened global reef system sustains the livelihood of not only the tourism and fishing industries, but all coastal communities that depend on it for sustenance and extreme weather protection.Coral bleaching occurs when the density of the photosynthetic algae in the coral (called zooxanthellae and endow the host coral with its vivid color) declines leaving the coral's white calcium carbonate exoskeleton visible through the transparent flesh. The decline in zooxanthellae concentrations is caused by stress from any of several factors, including: temperature changes, increased exposure to solar radiation, changes in the chemical or biological composition of the water, sedimentation, or subaerial exposure. The coral may recover in a matter of a few weeks depending on the duration and intensity of the stress factor or die leaving behind the stone-like skeleton. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Hurghada Environmental Protection and Conservation Association (HEPCA) organized two workshops to help address the potential impact of coral bleaching, sponsored by Kuoni's corporate social responsibility (CSR) program. The first scoping workshop focused on the tourism industry of the Egyptian Red Sea coast and was aimed at understanding vulnerabilities of the Tourism sector to climate change impacts and how best to adapt to potential future changes in the coral reef. The second training workshop was focused on Coral Reef Managers and assisting them to responding to climate change impacts on the coral reefs they manage. It was delivered to national park rangers from the Northern Red Sea Islands Protected Area, the Wadi El Gemal Protected Area, and the Elba Protected Area in addition to several members of the tourism and the diving industry. The workshop was delivered by a team of experts that have conducted pioneering research and management on the impact of climate change on coral reefs and included Dr. Paul Marshall, Director of the Climate Change Program of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Dr. Ameer Abdulla, Senior Specialist and Group Leader with the IUCN's Global Marine Program; and Dr. Tony Rouphael, a marine specialist with the IUCN Global Marine Program and who has conducted research along Egypt's Red Sea coast for over 10 years..Dr. Nadine Marshall, a social scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, who specializes in enhancing community resilience to environmental and policy change and uncertainty. The interdisciplinary workshop tackled climate change, a global but often theoretical concept to many people, with an applied and hands-on approach.. The workshop addressed the causes of coral bleaching and the political implications of and social vulnerabilities to climate change impacts and constraints to adaptation. It also provided an overview of management techniques and response plans. The workshop focused on practical measures that can be implemented to make both the reef and local communities more resilient to climate change. The workshop program included a field trip to assess the resilience of two reefs, an exercise presenting a methodology to train members of the tourism community and park managers to collect valuable data on a large scale, which would improve understanding of the resilience of Egyptian Red Sea reefs and enhance national and regional management strategies.A valuable outcome of the event was a promising plan for collaboration between park rangers and members of the tourism industry in developing a response plan to mass coral bleaching events. Both parties recognized that synergizing efforts is vital for mitigating and managing the socio-ecological impacts of coral bleaching on both the reef and dependant communities. HEPCA, IUCN, and Kuoni look forward to implementing more activities to enhance reef stewardship with all stakeholders associated with Egyptian Reefs
Bark Beetle Infestation Offers Warning on Delicate Workings of Climate Disruption
Earlier this month, a small group of interested citizens gathered at the Evergreen Library in Evergreen, Colo., to attend a Tuesday night program called “Beyond the Headlines: The Pine Beetle Infestation.” For some, it may seem a strange time to hold such a program, as the weather has been pretty wet and there hasn’t been much pine beetle activity in their neck of Colorado’s Front Range.
But a potential disaster looms just over the next ridge, figuratively and literally.
“The community does know that it is a problem that is going to be upon us itself in two or three years,” said Janice Tang, a librarian who attended the event. “They’re coming over the continental divide at this point. They’re up in Vail. They’re wreaking havoc in the pine forests in Vail.”
Several species of bark beetles – such as mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), piñon ips beetle (Ips confusus), and spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) – are attacking and devastating the predominantly conifer forests of western North America from British Columbia to New Mexico. Tens of millions of acres of western forests have been affected by die-offs of infected trees the past few years, causing more than $1 billion in damage annually in the United States alone.
The problem will likely worsen, unless steps are taken to the reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to a warmer climate, according to a recently released government report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
How global warming is affecting the delicate biological cycles of a single family of insects offers a stark warning on unforeseen ecosystem disruptions that climate change will usher in if left unchecked.
Bark beetles are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. They help increase the diversity of forest stands, killing older or weaker trees and creating patches of forest that differ in species composition, stem density, age, and successional stage. The beetles, by helping break down dead wood, also contributing to the recycling of minerals and nutrients. But, when outbreaks are widespread, they can cause massive die-offs and increase the likelihood of massive, devastating fires that can undo their normally beneficial effects.
Climate change influences the frequency, intensity, and distribution of bark beetle outbreaks by affecting both the beetles as well as the trees themselves. Kenneth F. Raffa, a professor in the departments of entomology and of forest and wildlife ecology at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of 2008 paper on the dynamics of bark beetle outbreaks in the journal BioScience, said that two climatic factors are important: temperature and drought.
“Elevated temperature has beneficial effects on bark beetles in two ways,” Raffa said. “One, it reduces the amount of mortality they experience in the wintertime. That’s obviously particularly important at the higher latitudes and the higher elevations. The other thing that elevated temperature does is that it can reduce the time needed for them to complete a generation. … You put those two elements together, their shorter life cycle and their higher survival, and you have more beetles, and more beetles allow them to attack healthier trees.”
All life stages of bark beetles can be killed by low temperatures, but the degree of coldness is not as important as its timing. Barbara J. Bentz, a research entomologist at the USDA Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, explained why.
“They’re not like us. When we get cold our tissues freeze and, boom, we’re dead. They metabolize these – basically we call them anti-freeze compounds. Glycerol is the one mountain pine beetle uses. What glycerol does is allow their tissues to not freeze” said Bentz. “We’ve recorded them down to minus 40 C when they have the maximum amount of glycerol in their bodies.”
Anti-freeze compounds such as glycerol take a lot of energy to make, Bentz said, so bark beetles rely on temperature trends to signal when to begin and end production of the compounds. Cold temperatures are more effective at killing the beetles when they are caught unprepared for the cold – particularly in the fall, when they are beginning production of the anti-freeze compounds, and spring, when they begin cutting back production of the compounds.
Since the beetles’ body temperature – thus their metabolic rate – is controlled by the environment, it should come as no surprise that warmer temperatures, therefore a faster metabolism, can shorten the time it takes for them to develop to their adult stage.
For organisms that can increase their numbers at potentially exponential rates, the shortening of the generation time can lead to explosive population growth – and devastating outbreaks in affected forests. This is more of a problem in higher latitudes and higher elevations, where warmer temperatures allow bark beetles that normally complete their life cycle in two years to do so in one.
In addition to boosting the growth side of the population equation, the shortening of the generation time may also decrease some types of mortality.
“If it takes one year instead of two years, they’re probably exposed to less predator-caused mortality,” Bentz said. “If it takes two years, they have to go through two winters, thus two periods of potential mortality from cold.”
While changing temperatures primarily affect the beetles, drought primarily affects the trees themselves. Drought stress taxes trees’ metabolism, making it more difficult for them to make the chemicals they use to defend themselves against a variety of pests and pathogens. Bark beetles can sense the concentration of the chemicals in individual trees and are attracted to those that are weakened by drought.
“Those chemicals that the beetle uses as an attractant are for the most part the same chemicals that the tree uses to defend itself, so concentration becomes very important,” Raffa said. “It’s often if the tree produces small amounts of those chemicals, the beetle can detect that. If the tree produces large amounts of those chemicals, then the beetle knows that that might be just too toxic a dose for it to contend with.”
Warming temperatures in the West allows bark beetles to have a greater effect on forests at higher latitudes and higher elevations – places where cooler conditions once kept them in check.
“As it has gotten warmer, it’s allowed mountain pine beetle, for example, to be at higher densities at further latitudes than in the past,” Raffa said. “It’s probably been in those higher latitudes at some kind of marginal basis for a long time, but never really had a big outbreak like now. These conditions have allowed it to change.
“The same with the higher altitudes. I think mountain pine beetle has always gotten into the high-elevation whitebark pine stands. It would get warm, and the beetle would go up there and kill some trees, then it would get cold, and the beetle would die off.
"The difference is now we’re seeing one year after another warmer than what it was historically and lots of tree mortality up in those high stands.”
But a potential disaster looms just over the next ridge, figuratively and literally.
“The community does know that it is a problem that is going to be upon us itself in two or three years,” said Janice Tang, a librarian who attended the event. “They’re coming over the continental divide at this point. They’re up in Vail. They’re wreaking havoc in the pine forests in Vail.”
Several species of bark beetles – such as mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), piñon ips beetle (Ips confusus), and spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) – are attacking and devastating the predominantly conifer forests of western North America from British Columbia to New Mexico. Tens of millions of acres of western forests have been affected by die-offs of infected trees the past few years, causing more than $1 billion in damage annually in the United States alone.
The problem will likely worsen, unless steps are taken to the reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to a warmer climate, according to a recently released government report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
How global warming is affecting the delicate biological cycles of a single family of insects offers a stark warning on unforeseen ecosystem disruptions that climate change will usher in if left unchecked.
Bark beetles are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. They help increase the diversity of forest stands, killing older or weaker trees and creating patches of forest that differ in species composition, stem density, age, and successional stage. The beetles, by helping break down dead wood, also contributing to the recycling of minerals and nutrients. But, when outbreaks are widespread, they can cause massive die-offs and increase the likelihood of massive, devastating fires that can undo their normally beneficial effects.
Climate change influences the frequency, intensity, and distribution of bark beetle outbreaks by affecting both the beetles as well as the trees themselves. Kenneth F. Raffa, a professor in the departments of entomology and of forest and wildlife ecology at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of 2008 paper on the dynamics of bark beetle outbreaks in the journal BioScience, said that two climatic factors are important: temperature and drought.
“Elevated temperature has beneficial effects on bark beetles in two ways,” Raffa said. “One, it reduces the amount of mortality they experience in the wintertime. That’s obviously particularly important at the higher latitudes and the higher elevations. The other thing that elevated temperature does is that it can reduce the time needed for them to complete a generation. … You put those two elements together, their shorter life cycle and their higher survival, and you have more beetles, and more beetles allow them to attack healthier trees.”
All life stages of bark beetles can be killed by low temperatures, but the degree of coldness is not as important as its timing. Barbara J. Bentz, a research entomologist at the USDA Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, explained why.
“They’re not like us. When we get cold our tissues freeze and, boom, we’re dead. They metabolize these – basically we call them anti-freeze compounds. Glycerol is the one mountain pine beetle uses. What glycerol does is allow their tissues to not freeze” said Bentz. “We’ve recorded them down to minus 40 C when they have the maximum amount of glycerol in their bodies.”
Anti-freeze compounds such as glycerol take a lot of energy to make, Bentz said, so bark beetles rely on temperature trends to signal when to begin and end production of the compounds. Cold temperatures are more effective at killing the beetles when they are caught unprepared for the cold – particularly in the fall, when they are beginning production of the anti-freeze compounds, and spring, when they begin cutting back production of the compounds.
Since the beetles’ body temperature – thus their metabolic rate – is controlled by the environment, it should come as no surprise that warmer temperatures, therefore a faster metabolism, can shorten the time it takes for them to develop to their adult stage.
For organisms that can increase their numbers at potentially exponential rates, the shortening of the generation time can lead to explosive population growth – and devastating outbreaks in affected forests. This is more of a problem in higher latitudes and higher elevations, where warmer temperatures allow bark beetles that normally complete their life cycle in two years to do so in one.
In addition to boosting the growth side of the population equation, the shortening of the generation time may also decrease some types of mortality.
“If it takes one year instead of two years, they’re probably exposed to less predator-caused mortality,” Bentz said. “If it takes two years, they have to go through two winters, thus two periods of potential mortality from cold.”
While changing temperatures primarily affect the beetles, drought primarily affects the trees themselves. Drought stress taxes trees’ metabolism, making it more difficult for them to make the chemicals they use to defend themselves against a variety of pests and pathogens. Bark beetles can sense the concentration of the chemicals in individual trees and are attracted to those that are weakened by drought.
“Those chemicals that the beetle uses as an attractant are for the most part the same chemicals that the tree uses to defend itself, so concentration becomes very important,” Raffa said. “It’s often if the tree produces small amounts of those chemicals, the beetle can detect that. If the tree produces large amounts of those chemicals, then the beetle knows that that might be just too toxic a dose for it to contend with.”
Warming temperatures in the West allows bark beetles to have a greater effect on forests at higher latitudes and higher elevations – places where cooler conditions once kept them in check.
“As it has gotten warmer, it’s allowed mountain pine beetle, for example, to be at higher densities at further latitudes than in the past,” Raffa said. “It’s probably been in those higher latitudes at some kind of marginal basis for a long time, but never really had a big outbreak like now. These conditions have allowed it to change.
“The same with the higher altitudes. I think mountain pine beetle has always gotten into the high-elevation whitebark pine stands. It would get warm, and the beetle would go up there and kill some trees, then it would get cold, and the beetle would die off.
"The difference is now we’re seeing one year after another warmer than what it was historically and lots of tree mortality up in those high stands.”
Get it right with climate change
PANOS Caribbean and the National Environment Education Committee have issued a call for all Jamaicans to, "in their own small way", do what is necessary to address the problem of climate change.
Well, the store is close so let's conserve and help not to pollute the air with smoke. Let's ride a bicycle instead of driving.
According to environmental lobbyists, the introduction of more legislation will not be the answer to tackling climate change. Instead, they say the solution will be to educate people on what they need to do to help address the challenges climate change presents.
Indi Mclymont-Lafayette, regional director of media and environment at Panos Caribbean, said that with so many laws already in the country, the approach to addressing the problem of climate change should not be to write more legislation but to educate and sensitise more people about what they can do.
"Each and every Jamaican in their own small way can help to address the problem of climate change," she said.
Clifford Mahlung, lead climate negotiator for Jamaica, said the emission of greenhouse gases was one of the main contributors to the problem of climate change.He noted that in Jamaica, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were the energy and transportation sectors.
"It is therefore important for Jamaicans to do what they can to address the problem," Mahlung said, adding that conservation of electricty and car-pooling are ways people can help address the problem.
"Using a solar water heater instead of an electric heater is another way," he said.
Well, the store is close so let's conserve and help not to pollute the air with smoke. Let's ride a bicycle instead of driving.
According to environmental lobbyists, the introduction of more legislation will not be the answer to tackling climate change. Instead, they say the solution will be to educate people on what they need to do to help address the challenges climate change presents.
Indi Mclymont-Lafayette, regional director of media and environment at Panos Caribbean, said that with so many laws already in the country, the approach to addressing the problem of climate change should not be to write more legislation but to educate and sensitise more people about what they can do.
"Each and every Jamaican in their own small way can help to address the problem of climate change," she said.
Clifford Mahlung, lead climate negotiator for Jamaica, said the emission of greenhouse gases was one of the main contributors to the problem of climate change.He noted that in Jamaica, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were the energy and transportation sectors.
"It is therefore important for Jamaicans to do what they can to address the problem," Mahlung said, adding that conservation of electricty and car-pooling are ways people can help address the problem.
"Using a solar water heater instead of an electric heater is another way," he said.
Oil Group's 'Citizen' Rally Memo Stirs Debate
A petroleum industry trade group is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend rallies attacking climate-change legislation, an approach to grass-roots politics that resembles strategies used recently by some opponents of health-care reform.
In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for "Energy Citizen" rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress's August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a "human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.
"Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies," Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.
Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform -- including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals -- have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at "town hall" meetings.
"It's the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming," Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group's plans. "These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater."
The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.
Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.
In a telephone interview, Gerard defended the meetings as events of education and discussion. He said they are designed to be standalone rallies, not efforts to pack lawmakers' scheduled meetings.
"There's a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn't agree with their views somehow doesn't play by the rules. We disagree strongly with that," Gerard said. His group says the bill passed by the House would cost millions of jobs and burden the U.S. economy with higher energy costs.
This skirmishing over the memo shows how hot the debate on climate-change legislation has become, even with health care dominating the Hill. Last week, the Center for Public Integrity found that 1,150 firms and advocacy groups were lobbying over climate- change legislation.
The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy "allowances" for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.
The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a "cap and trade" approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the "Energy Citizen" rallies.
And former vice president Al Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have -- or would like to have -- jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.
Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.
"They're reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that's not something that we've used as a tactic," she said.
In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for "Energy Citizen" rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress's August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a "human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.
"Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies," Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.
Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform -- including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals -- have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at "town hall" meetings.
"It's the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming," Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group's plans. "These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater."
The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.
Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.
In a telephone interview, Gerard defended the meetings as events of education and discussion. He said they are designed to be standalone rallies, not efforts to pack lawmakers' scheduled meetings.
"There's a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn't agree with their views somehow doesn't play by the rules. We disagree strongly with that," Gerard said. His group says the bill passed by the House would cost millions of jobs and burden the U.S. economy with higher energy costs.
This skirmishing over the memo shows how hot the debate on climate-change legislation has become, even with health care dominating the Hill. Last week, the Center for Public Integrity found that 1,150 firms and advocacy groups were lobbying over climate- change legislation.
The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy "allowances" for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.
The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a "cap and trade" approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the "Energy Citizen" rallies.
And former vice president Al Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have -- or would like to have -- jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.
Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.
"They're reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that's not something that we've used as a tactic," she said.
Farm Bureau: Climate Bill Will Not Change the Climate
American Farm Bureau Federation: Climate change legislation currently being considered by Congress will have a devastating impact on family farms and agricultural production across the country. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2454), which is being examined by the Senate to serve as the potential basis for its climate change legislation, poses a real economic threat for the U.S. agricultural economy. It also places our nation at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners and fails to provide viable alternative sources of energy to keep our economy strong and hold down costs. And, after all this, the measure would have little or no impact on the climate.
Not for Everyone
Farmers and ranchers are dependent on abundant and affordable energy not only for their vehicles, but also for the costs of fertilizers, irrigation and crop protection tools. Raising production costs while lowering farm income will affect all producers and all commodities. While offsets may help some farmers with these energy-related costs, it is not the complete answer. Even with a robust agricultural offset program, H.R. 2454 does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be unable to benefit.
Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market.
A Ton = A Ton
Our producers and the world depend on export markets. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 doesn’t allow U.S. producers to stand on equal footing with their global counterparts. The bill’s cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopt similar programs. The increased costs to U.S. producers will not be borne by competitive producers in other countries that do not have similar restrictions, putting our producers at a clear disadvantage.
H.R. 2454 provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs. The bill creates a hole in our energy supply, leaving farmers, ranchers and others with either reduced sources of energy or energy that is too expensive.
Lastly, at the end of the day, there is no conclusive scientific data that all of these measures will have any significant impact on the climate. Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050 without the participation of other countries. Reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will not work. A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.
And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.
It is imperative that Congress look at this issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. On a matter that will affect our nation for decades to come it would be the height of folly to rush to pass climate change legislation that threatens our economy and has little hope of changing the climate
Not for Everyone
Farmers and ranchers are dependent on abundant and affordable energy not only for their vehicles, but also for the costs of fertilizers, irrigation and crop protection tools. Raising production costs while lowering farm income will affect all producers and all commodities. While offsets may help some farmers with these energy-related costs, it is not the complete answer. Even with a robust agricultural offset program, H.R. 2454 does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be unable to benefit.
Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market.
A Ton = A Ton
Our producers and the world depend on export markets. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 doesn’t allow U.S. producers to stand on equal footing with their global counterparts. The bill’s cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopt similar programs. The increased costs to U.S. producers will not be borne by competitive producers in other countries that do not have similar restrictions, putting our producers at a clear disadvantage.
H.R. 2454 provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs. The bill creates a hole in our energy supply, leaving farmers, ranchers and others with either reduced sources of energy or energy that is too expensive.
Lastly, at the end of the day, there is no conclusive scientific data that all of these measures will have any significant impact on the climate. Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050 without the participation of other countries. Reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will not work. A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.
And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.
It is imperative that Congress look at this issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. On a matter that will affect our nation for decades to come it would be the height of folly to rush to pass climate change legislation that threatens our economy and has little hope of changing the climate
CLRI develops green tech to process leather
Researchers at the Chennai-based Central Leather Research Institute have developed a novel green technology for leather processing which makaes use of biocatalysts to reduce the amount of environmental pollutants.
The new process makes use of enzymes which reduces the discharge of hazardous substances during the tanning and pre-tanning steps of leather processing by almost 90%, P Thanikaivelan, senior scientist in CLRI, said. It uses enzymes such as carbohydrases, proteases and protelytic to replace the conventional steps of soaking (cleansing and re-hydration), de-hairing, bating (removal of unwanted proteins) and degreasing (removal of fat), he said. "These biocatalysts perform chemical transformations on organic compounds which is otherwise performed by conducting chemical reactions," Thanikaivelan said. Nearly 70 per cent of emission loads of the conventional leather processing emanates from pertaining operations, according to estimates by leather scientists. Citing an example, Thanikaivelan said that the process of de-hairing -- which causes maximum pollution in leather processing -- the scientists had used sodium alkali and sulphide as biocatalysts
The new process makes use of enzymes which reduces the discharge of hazardous substances during the tanning and pre-tanning steps of leather processing by almost 90%, P Thanikaivelan, senior scientist in CLRI, said. It uses enzymes such as carbohydrases, proteases and protelytic to replace the conventional steps of soaking (cleansing and re-hydration), de-hairing, bating (removal of unwanted proteins) and degreasing (removal of fat), he said. "These biocatalysts perform chemical transformations on organic compounds which is otherwise performed by conducting chemical reactions," Thanikaivelan said. Nearly 70 per cent of emission loads of the conventional leather processing emanates from pertaining operations, according to estimates by leather scientists. Citing an example, Thanikaivelan said that the process of de-hairing -- which causes maximum pollution in leather processing -- the scientists had used sodium alkali and sulphide as biocatalysts
India is now a major carbon sink: Govt report
India is rapidly transforming itself into a major carbon sink igniting hopes of big funds for maintaining natural green cover, a new report has said.
The report titled "India's Forest and Tree Cover" prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests said that from 1995 to 2005, the carbon stocks stored in the country's forests and trees have increased from 6,245 million tonnes to 6,662 million tonnes registering an annual increment of 38 million tonnes of carbon or 138 million ton of Carbon dioxide. The report, which was released by Union Minister of state for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh recently here, also said that India can get Rs 6,000 crore every year for its carbon sink assuming the value of $7 per ton of Carbon dioxide. Noting that the forest cover accounts for 2.8% of India's total geographical area, the report said, the forest and tree cover is enough to neutralise 11.23% of the country's total green house emissions at 1994 level. This is equivalent to offsetting 100% emissions from all energy in residential and transport sectors or 40 per cent of the total emissions from agriculture sector.
The report titled "India's Forest and Tree Cover" prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests said that from 1995 to 2005, the carbon stocks stored in the country's forests and trees have increased from 6,245 million tonnes to 6,662 million tonnes registering an annual increment of 38 million tonnes of carbon or 138 million ton of Carbon dioxide. The report, which was released by Union Minister of state for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh recently here, also said that India can get Rs 6,000 crore every year for its carbon sink assuming the value of $7 per ton of Carbon dioxide. Noting that the forest cover accounts for 2.8% of India's total geographical area, the report said, the forest and tree cover is enough to neutralise 11.23% of the country's total green house emissions at 1994 level. This is equivalent to offsetting 100% emissions from all energy in residential and transport sectors or 40 per cent of the total emissions from agriculture sector.
US probe captures Saturn equinox
Raw images of the moment Saturn reached its equinox have been beamed to Earth by the US Cassini spacecraft.
Scientists are studying the unprocessed pictures to uncover new discoveries in the gas giant's ring system.
Equinox is the moment when the Sun crosses a planet's equator, making day and night the same length.
During this time, the Sun's angle over Saturn is lowered, showing new objects and irregular structures as shadows on the otherwise flat plane of the rings.
Saturn's orbit is so vast that Equinox happens only once every 15 Earth years.
At the moment of equinox, the rings turn edge-on to the Sun and reflect almost no sunlight.
This is the first equinox since 1994 and the first time there has been an observer, in the shape of the joint US and European spacecraft, Cassini.
In an email, Dr Carolyn Porco, leader of Cassini's imaging team, said the long-awaited images did not disappoint: "Even a cursory examination of them reveals strange new phenomena we hadn't fully anticipated.
"Over the next week or two, the [Cassini] imaging team will be poring over these precious gems to see what other surprises await us, and, as usual, we will announce what we have found as soon as we can."
Cassini was launched in October 1997 from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It arrived at Saturn in July 2004 to embark on a four-year mission of exploration around the planet and its moons.
The spacecraft is still operating well and has been re-programmed to carry out new tasks. Its current mission is to answer some of the questions raised by its earlier observations.
Scientists are studying the unprocessed pictures to uncover new discoveries in the gas giant's ring system.
Equinox is the moment when the Sun crosses a planet's equator, making day and night the same length.
During this time, the Sun's angle over Saturn is lowered, showing new objects and irregular structures as shadows on the otherwise flat plane of the rings.
Saturn's orbit is so vast that Equinox happens only once every 15 Earth years.
At the moment of equinox, the rings turn edge-on to the Sun and reflect almost no sunlight.
This is the first equinox since 1994 and the first time there has been an observer, in the shape of the joint US and European spacecraft, Cassini.
In an email, Dr Carolyn Porco, leader of Cassini's imaging team, said the long-awaited images did not disappoint: "Even a cursory examination of them reveals strange new phenomena we hadn't fully anticipated.
"Over the next week or two, the [Cassini] imaging team will be poring over these precious gems to see what other surprises await us, and, as usual, we will announce what we have found as soon as we can."
Cassini was launched in October 1997 from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It arrived at Saturn in July 2004 to embark on a four-year mission of exploration around the planet and its moons.
The spacecraft is still operating well and has been re-programmed to carry out new tasks. Its current mission is to answer some of the questions raised by its earlier observations.
Energy policy 'too wind focused'
The UK must invest more in nuclear and clean coal energy and put less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future, business leaders say.
The CBI says government energy policy is "disjointed" and it is urging a "more balanced" energy mix.
The current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets, it added.
The government said putting in place a balanced mix of renewables, new nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels was at the heart of its energy policy.
It is due to set out its Energy White Paper on Wednesday.
But the CBI is calling for more action in its report "Decision Time".
"The government's disjointed approach is deterring the private sector investment needed to get our energy system up to scratch, bolster security and cut emissions," said CBI deputy director general John Cridland.
"While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants.
"If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket."
Energy war
The CBI's comments are based on computer modelling of current power sector investment by consultants McKinsey.
The CBI wants the government to:
• reduce the percentage of wind power expected by 2020 under the Renewables Strategy later this week, to encourage investment in other low-carbon energy sources
• speed up the planning process for energy supplies
• produce rules and funding arrangements for for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration plants
• accelerate investment in the grid
• improve energy efficiency in the electricity, heating and transport sectors, including offering financial sweeteners for consumers choosing more efficient products.
'No surprise'
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: "We know that big investments need certainty, and we're on track with our promise to remove costly unnecessary barriers to new nuclear, such as the planning reforms already in train."
Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and formerly a member of the CBI's energy policy committee, told the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin that the increase in wind power was threatening to the big power generators who he said dominated the committee.
"This document is no surprise. EDF have been lobbying very hard for less obligations on renewables, saying it will distract from nuclear," he said.
"This is precisely what Patricia Hewitt [the former trade and industry secretary] warned would happen when she published the 'no-new-nukes' 2003 energy white paper."
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said that by calling for wind power's contribution to the UK's renewable energy targets to be reduced the CBI is actually doing its members a great disservice.
"Nuclear power is less effective than wind power at tackling climate change, while investment in renewables would create much needed British jobs in one of the few growth sectors in the global economy," he said.
"Here in the UK we have one of the best renewable energy resources anywhere in the world and a manufacturing sector champing at the bit to capture the lead in marine technologies like offshore wind and tidal power."
Meanwhile a DECC spokesman told Roger Harrabin the government was "fully behind" the 15% renewables target.
"We're not setting fixed sub-targets [for electricity, heat, transport], but our projections are about finding the most practicable and cost effective mix.
"Our analysis supports the approach we're taking. We don't believe it inhibits new nuclear - there are a myriad of other considerations to factor in."
The CBI says government energy policy is "disjointed" and it is urging a "more balanced" energy mix.
The current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets, it added.
The government said putting in place a balanced mix of renewables, new nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels was at the heart of its energy policy.
It is due to set out its Energy White Paper on Wednesday.
But the CBI is calling for more action in its report "Decision Time".
"The government's disjointed approach is deterring the private sector investment needed to get our energy system up to scratch, bolster security and cut emissions," said CBI deputy director general John Cridland.
"While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants.
"If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket."
Energy war
The CBI's comments are based on computer modelling of current power sector investment by consultants McKinsey.
The CBI wants the government to:
• reduce the percentage of wind power expected by 2020 under the Renewables Strategy later this week, to encourage investment in other low-carbon energy sources
• speed up the planning process for energy supplies
• produce rules and funding arrangements for for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration plants
• accelerate investment in the grid
• improve energy efficiency in the electricity, heating and transport sectors, including offering financial sweeteners for consumers choosing more efficient products.
'No surprise'
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: "We know that big investments need certainty, and we're on track with our promise to remove costly unnecessary barriers to new nuclear, such as the planning reforms already in train."
Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and formerly a member of the CBI's energy policy committee, told the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin that the increase in wind power was threatening to the big power generators who he said dominated the committee.
"This document is no surprise. EDF have been lobbying very hard for less obligations on renewables, saying it will distract from nuclear," he said.
"This is precisely what Patricia Hewitt [the former trade and industry secretary] warned would happen when she published the 'no-new-nukes' 2003 energy white paper."
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said that by calling for wind power's contribution to the UK's renewable energy targets to be reduced the CBI is actually doing its members a great disservice.
"Nuclear power is less effective than wind power at tackling climate change, while investment in renewables would create much needed British jobs in one of the few growth sectors in the global economy," he said.
"Here in the UK we have one of the best renewable energy resources anywhere in the world and a manufacturing sector champing at the bit to capture the lead in marine technologies like offshore wind and tidal power."
Meanwhile a DECC spokesman told Roger Harrabin the government was "fully behind" the 15% renewables target.
"We're not setting fixed sub-targets [for electricity, heat, transport], but our projections are about finding the most practicable and cost effective mix.
"Our analysis supports the approach we're taking. We don't believe it inhibits new nuclear - there are a myriad of other considerations to factor in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)