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.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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:
Comments (Atom)