Keystone XL Pipeline: Lame-Duck Congress Fast-Tracks Legislation
The tortuous six-year fight over a controversial proposal to funnel oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast took another turn this week after both houses of the lame-duck Congress moved to vote on the Keystone XL pipeline.
As the legislation barrels through Congress and heads to the Oval Office, President Barack Obama may soon settle one of the most politically charged debates of the decade. The White House appeared to downplay the congressional maneuvering Wednesday, saying it takes a “dim view of these kinds of legislative proposals.”
But if the Senate passes the bill as early as next Tuesday, Obama would likely be forced to either sign it into law or veto it. He has said the project needs his approval because it crosses an international border.
Enbride Company Balks at Dane County’s Request for Extra Spill Safeguards Around Expansion of Tar Sands Crude Oil Pipeline
Dane County officials want Enbridge Energy to buy insurance or a performance bond that would guarantee availability of cleanup money in the event of a spill of the tar sands petroleum from its pipeline and pumping station near Marshall.
Officials are worried about a repeat of a 2010 spill that fouled 35 miles of Michigan’s Kalamazoo River and led to an ongoing cleanup effort with an estimated price tag of $1.21 billion.
But the Calgary-based company is insisting that local governments can’t require financial guarantees because pipeline safety is regulated exclusively by federal law.
Enbridge is tripling the capacity of its Line 61, which runs from Superior to the Illinois border, by adding horsepower to 12 pumping stations, including one in the town of Medina near Marshall in the northeast part of the county.
The county Zoning and Land Regulation Committee meets Tuesday to consider the conditions it will place on a permit Enbridge needs to do the work.
Committee chairman Patrick Miles said he’s not sure what the committee will do given the risk of a costly court battle over a demand for insurance or bonding.
He acknowledged that the federal government would be in charge of ensuring cleanup but said the county could play a role.
“If they have some financial surety committed to a cleanup, it would give some comfort that if they go belly up or run out of resources or go bankrupt, there’s some resources for a cleanup,” Miles said.
Miles said he shares the concerns of environmental advocates about the climate change implications of expanding pipeline capacity and the relatively high energy cost of extracting tar sands oil, but he sees no way to address those things in the county permit approval process.
Enbridge said it has never accepted the kind of financial condition county staff included as an option for the proposed permit at Miles’ request. The company has already received local permits for upgrading the other 11 pumping stations, and none of the communities asked for financial assurances, said spokeswoman Becky Haase.
However, the company has already made one special allowance for the Dane County site. At the request of the town of Medina, Enbridge agreed to build a bermed spill containment area twice the size of those in other communities, Haase said. The structure will be designed to hold 2.1 million gallons, the amount that would be released in a 60-minute spill at the increased flow rate, she said.
Enbridge agreed to the condition in the town permit as a “good neighbor” gesture, Haase said.
Containment structures at the other 11 sites will be expanded to accommodate higher flow, but they’ll still have only a 30-minute capacity, she said.
Pipeline safety regulations are governed by federal law, and local governments are forbidden from adding their own, county attorney David Gault said. However, federal law leaves open the possibility for local regulation on cleaning up spills, including bonds or insurance, Gault said.
Amy Back, Enbridge senior legal counsel, in an Oct. 14 letter to the county, disagreed. She wrote that any regulation of an interstate pipeline such as the Enbridge line is “preempted by federal law and therefore is not a permissible condition of approval.”
The pump station improvements will mean Line 61 will be able to carry an average 1.2 billion barrels of tar sands petroleum a day starting next year, Haase said. The oil originates in western Canada and North Dakota. The pipeline cuts across Wisconsin on its way to Gulf Coast refineries.
The Sierra Club Wisconsin chapter is concerned that there’s been insufficient government oversight and that pipelines might not stand up to increased pressure from the new pumps.
Conservation program director Elizabeth Ward faulted the state Department of Natural Resources for failing to conduct an environmental assessment, but the agency maintains it approved the planned higher capacity before the pipe was installed in 2007.
The company paid $3.6 million in federal fines as a result of the 2010 Kalamazoo River spill near Marshall, Michigan, the largest oil pipeline failure in U.S. history.
The cleanup remains incomplete, but the company has revamped its safety procedures, Haase said.
The Michigan spill released an estimated 840,000 gallons of thick crude into a wetland that drains to the river. The cleanup has been complicated because the oil stuck to sand, sticks and debris churned up by heavy rains, Haase said. Oil usually floats on water, but the debris carried it down to the riverbed making cleanup more difficult, she said.
Enbridge president Mark Maki said that after the spill, the company increased its insurance liability coverage to $700 million, short of the $1.21 billion cleanup cost.
“If you go back over our history, the Marshall incident was without question really a confluence of a number of very, very difficult and bad events in terms of what it cost ultimately,” Maki said in a Nov. 3 earnings call. “So we just don’t see a lot of value in insuring for another Marshall.”
In an SEC filing, the company indicated it expected around $40 million in fines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Water Act.
The Michigan spill occurred because start-up of pumps weakened and then ruptured a section of pipe, Haase said. The company control center in Edmonton, Alberta, which monitors all the company’s lines, misread signals showing a pressure drop in the line, she said.
Operators restarted pumps a number of times believing there was a bubble in the line. The spill went on for 17 hours and three work shifts before it was shut down.
Haase said the control center operates under tighter protocols and the company has invested $4.4 billion in safety and maintenance since the spill. “I’d love to say I guarantee it won’t ever happen again, but I can’t say that,” Haase said.
By Steven Verburg, Madison Newspapers Inc.
To view tar sands mining impacts, see Neil Young’s performance of the “Mother Earth” video at the close of “About this Blog”.
More Reasons why Wisconsinites Should Be “Angry” about the Actions and In-actions of their Governor!
While speaking at a Republican Party field office in Waukesha last week, Republican National Committee co-chair Sharon Day was searching for an answer as to why the governor’s race seemed so close this year in Wisconsin and the need for all republicans to get to the polls on November 4th and re-elect Scott Walker. “It’s not going to be an easy election”, Day told the audience, “it’s a close election. Like I said, much closer than I can even understand why.
“I don’t want to say anything about your Wisconsin voters but, some of them might not be as sharp as a knife.”
[as reported by Bill Glauber of the Journal Sentinel Oct. 20, 2014] Then again maybe it’s so close because Wisconsin voters are all too well informed of the impacts of their governor’s decisions over the last 4 years on Wisconsin’s environment and the inability of the Walker administration to follow a sustainable course to the future.
Wisconsin’s voters have always been well respected and admired for electing public officials who went beyond the call of duty and sometimes went outside the preferences of their own party to ensure Wisconsin’s many fine natural resources were always well protected. Wisconsin became a model in the 1960 and 1970s that other states emulated to protect their own natural and human resources. It never did mattered much which political party was in the majority in the state Legislature, nor the party affiliation of the governor. What mattered most was that Wisconsin’s rich natural resource and its healthy population was protected no matter what.
Even Gaylord Nelson ran as a Progressive Republican his first attempt at being a representative in the Wisconsin Legislature (he lost). Two years later, in 1948, he ran for the state Senate as a Democrat in 1948 and won. He then served ten years in the state Legislature before being elected Wisconsin Governor in 1958. He became a U.S. Senator in 1962 and championed several other environmental protection laws throughout his 18 years in the U.S. Senate, cooperating regularly with fellow democrats and republicans alike. That’s how it pretty much was in Wisconsin for a number of decades regardless of there being a democratic or republican governor. democratic
However, in 2010, Wisconsin voters elected Republican Scott Walker to be their governor. Moreover, Republican filled the majority of both the Wisconsin Assembly and the State Senate. Things changed. Beginning in 2010, it mattered a great deal whether a person in the government was a democrat or a republican. It mattered for the environment, too, as Governor Scott Walker had promised 250,000 new jobs should he be elected and he has not been able to keep that promise. What’s worse, neither he nor his party’s other officials in the State Assembly and the State Senate have shown any regard for protecting Wisconsin’s current and future environment from harm. Nor have they taken any meaningful action reins of government to really help the middle and lower income families and individuals in Wisconsin the last 4 years.
After being sworn into office on January 3, 2011, like a bolt from the blue, Scott Walker introduced a controversial budget repair plan which eliminated many collective bargaining rights for most public employees and made over $1 billion in cuts to the state’s biennial education budget and $500 million in cuts from the state’s biennial Medicaid budget. The budget cuts led to significant protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol and sparked a recall vote of Walker in June 2012, which he won with just 53% of the vote.
Wisconsin’s environment has been under attack by the republicans in the state Legislature and by Governor Scott Walker since they took the reins of Wisconsin’s government in January 2010. Wisconsin will never be the same. But things could get even worse with four more years of republican controlled government and Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor.
According to Editor emeritus of The Capital Times, “They’ve [Wisconsin’s republicans] been intent on tearing down the state’s traditions, dating all the way back to another Republican governor, Robert M. La Follette. They’ve weakened La Follette’s famed civil service rules. They’ve made drastic cuts to the Nelson-Knowles public land purchases and rolled back environmental rules to make it easier to build on wetlands or construct open pit mines in recreational areas. They’ve vigorously fought gay marriage equality until the U.S. Supreme Court finally told them to stop.
And all the while they’ve unabashedly worked to change the rules to give them an advantage at election time to stay in power to continue tearing down what their predecessors from both parties have built. They’ve relentlessly pushed voter ID under the guise of stopping what experts agree is nonexistent voter fraud. They’ve made it harder for people in urban areas, where many Democrats live, to vote absentee. They’ve gerrymandered legislative districts like they’ve never been gerrymandered before. No other Republican administration would have ever thought of being so brazen…”
“Contrast that with previous Republican administrations. Warren Knowles brought in the likes of respected governmental experts like James Morgan, Paul Hassett and Wayne McGown. Lee Dreyfus surrounded himself with stalwarts like Bill Kraus, Mike Musolf and the incomparable “Stone” Williams. Tommy Thompson reached into the Democratic caucus and made state Sen. Tim Cullen a key cabinet member and made class acts like Mark Bugher a key player. There was always one goal in mind: Make Wisconsin government work for all the people, not the special few. That, sadly, isn’t the case with those who call themselves Republicans in state government these days.”
“If they’re returned to office next week, the destruction of what was once Wisconsin will continue.”
In perhaps no other subject area has Wisconsin lost ground in the last four years than that of clean energy production and reducing Wisconsin’s global footprint. In April 2007, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle signed Executive Order 191 establishing the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming (GTF). The Task Force brought together members of the business, industry, government and environmental consulting communities to create a plan of action for the state of Wisconsin that addresses issues related to climate change. Doyle commissioned the Task Force to identify actionable public policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Wisconsin while ensuring that the state remains competitive in the global economy.
The Task Force’s final report to the governor, entitled “Wisconsin’s Strategy for Reducing Global Warming,” was released in July 2008. The report recommended the state reduce its GHG emissions “to 2005 levels by 2014”, “22% below 2005 levels by 2022”, and “75% below 2005 levels by 2050”. The GHG emission mitigation options recommended were similar to those recommended by other states.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel‘s Lee Bergquist and Thomas Content, “only a few years ago, fighting global warming was a front burner topic among state policy makers. But the issue has been largely ignored in Wisconsin since 2010 with the collapse of legislation that would have required a big shift to renewable power.”
After an intense focus on climate change under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature devoted little attention to the issue. Shortly after taking office in 2011, Walker canceled plans to burn renewable biomass at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The school’s power plant had come under fire for high construction costs and other problems.
In moves directed by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC, 2 of its 3 commission are appointees of Governor Scott Walker), the state’s Focus on Energy program suspended incentives for solar panel projects twice in the past three years. More recently, Wisconsin utility companies, including Madison Gas and Electric Company (MGE), have submitted proposals to the PSC which would allow them to cut back further on incentives for customers to install solar panels. MGE recently submitted plans to increase monthly baseline charges and reduce per kilowatt rates, making residential and commercial investments in solar energy less economically advantageous in the future. For example, under MGE’s proposal this fall, the fixed charge for connecting to the power grid would increase from about $10 to $19 a month, while the energy usage rates would drop from 14.4 cents to 13.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Much greater increases in the fixed charges were announced for years beginning in 2016.
According to Michael Vickerman, the program and policy director for RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide group that advocates for renewable energy, the proposed rates would result in cost increases on an unprecedented scale, putting Madison’s electricity rates among the highest in the region. “What they’re proposing is practically double what is the norm in the upper Midwest,” he told Madison’s weekly newspaper, ISTHMUS.
“If MGE’s rate changes go through, the results could have ramifications across the entire nation. This sets a very bad precedent,” said Michael Noble, the executive director of Fresh Energy, a nationwide renewable energy coalition.
Vickerman said the proposed changes would have an impact on solar installation in Wisconsin, “which is already falling behind the rest of the nation”. Feelings of insecurity from the current rate debate may have had a hand in that drop, he argued. “It is the lowering of the [energy] rate that is the most unsettling for the solar industry,” he said. Property owners might be less inclined to invest in solar, since such investments usually take several years to be paid back.
The proposed plans have met with widespread public opposition at PSC’s public hearings. Yet the Walker administration has been strangely silent on this issue. The PSC is expected to announce its decision on MG&E’s proposed changes to its rate structure in December.
The transportation is the second most major source of U.S. greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, second to only electricity generating coal and natural gas powered electricity generating plants. Most of the greenhouse gas are emitted by flying and driving motor vehicles.
Since January 2011, Governor Walker has spent nearly $1 million in campaign funds on air travel, according Jessie Opoien, writing for The Capital Times. The majority of his flights out of state are taken on private, chartered jet – by far the worse way to travel as far as the environment is concerned because per passenger emissions are at their highest compared to other travel modes.
Walker has also done nothing to reduce the vehicle miles traveled on Wisconsin roads and bridges, which is the other part of transportation’s large annual slug of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide that remains in the atmosphere (other quantities of it are absorbed into the oceans, causing the oceans to become 30% more acidic than during the early 20th century) may remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation reports that the annual number of vehicle miles traveled on Wisconsin roads has now “leveled off” at 59.5 billion miles. That is roughly double the vehicle miles traveled on Wisconsin roads in 1975 and even the 1975 levels of 30 billion miles traveled per year is unsustainable if we are going to do anything timely on the release of greenhouse gases from transportation in Wisconsin. For every gallon of gasoline burn in an internal combustion chamber, 20 pound of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere.
Women’s rights, taking health care decision out of women’s hands, and countering overpopulation have also been under attack by the Walker administration. One of the first things Governor Walker did was repeal the Equal Pay Protection Act in Wisconsin which will set women financially in reverse compared to men.
State republicans and Governor Scott Walker have gutted Wisconsin family planning and women’s reproductive health care centers in Wisconsin. This September, the Fond du Lac Planned Parenthood clinic shut its doors, marking the fifth Planned Parenthood closure in Wisconsin to directly result from Walker’s decision to eliminate family planning dollars in the state budget. This action is short-sited.
In a report by Kate Golden, writing in the Wisconsin State Journal Monday, Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison, a former public policy director of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, is reported to have said she is suspicious because Gov. Scott Walker ‘s administration and the Republican-controlled Legislature have been “hostile to birth control”.
The problem of unwanted pregnancies in Wisconsin and elsewhere has profoundly negative social, economic and environmental consequences for Wisconsin and the sustainability of our entire planet, which makes it imperative that unwanted pregnancies are prevented. That is a primary mission of Planned Parenthood and will mean a lot in terms of unnecessary greenhouse gases and the cost of social programs. It is already a tragedy that program funds have been cut and clinics had to close.
The reasons for Wisconsinites’ anger with Governor Walker over the last 4 years are nearly endless. Environmental writer Bill Berry’s observation on Walker’s environmental record following Berry’s four decades of covering the environment in Wisconsin should suffice: “Scoot Walker has by far the worst environmental record of all Wisconsin governors of that time”. [from Berry’s opinion plece in the October 8-14, 2014 edition of The Capital Times.]
IPCC Releases Final Report on Global Warming and Climate Change
In a word: “dire” – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The window of opportunity for doing something positive about it – closing. The time to start action on quickly reducing human causes releases of greenhouse gases – NOW!
From the Huffington Post (November 3, 2014):
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.’s panel on climate science said Sunday.
The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s giant climate assessment offered no surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three reports released in the past 13 months.
But it underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms. Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have a decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many consider dangerous.
The IPCC didn’t say exactly what such a world would look like but it would likely require a massive shift to renewable sources to power homes, cars and industries combined with new technologies to suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
The report warned that failure to reduce emissions could lock the world on a trajectory with “irreversible” impact on people and the environment. Some impacts already being observed included rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and intense heat waves.
The science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report’s launch in Copenhagen.
Amid its grim projections, the report said the tools are there to set the world on a low-emissions path and break the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas which pollute the atmosphere with heat-trapping CO2, the chief greenhouse gas.
“All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change,” IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess global warming and its impacts. The report released Sunday caps its latest assessment, a mega-review of 30,000 climate change studies that establishes with 95-percent certainty that most of the warming seen since the 1950s is man-made. The IPCC’s best estimate is that just about all of it is man-made, but it can’t say that with the same degree of certainty.
Today only a small minority of scientists challenge the mainstream conclusion that climate change is linked to human activity.
Global Climate Change, a NASA website, says 97 percent of climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
The American public isn’t as convinced. A year-old survey by Pew Research showed 67 percent of Americans believed global warming is occurring and 44 percent said the earth is warming mostly because of human activity. More recently, a New York Times poll said 42 percent of Republicans say global warming won’t have a serious impact, a view held by 12 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of independents.
Sleep-deprived delegates approved the final documents Saturday after a weeklong line-by-line review that underscored that the IPCC process is not just about science. The reports must be approved both by scientists and governments, which means political issues from U.N. climate negotiations, which are nearing a 2015 deadline for a global agreement, inevitably affect the outcome.
The rift between developed and developing countries in the U.N. talks opened up in Copenhagen over a passage on what levels of warming could be considered dangerous. After a protracted battle, the text was dropped from a key summary for policy-makers — to the disappointment of some scientists.
“If the governments are going to expect the IPCC to do their job,” said Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC’s second report, they shouldn’t “get caught up in fights that have nothing to do with the IPCC.”
The omission meant the word “dangerous” disappeared from the summary altogether. It appeared only twice in a longer underlying report compared to seven times in a draft produced before the Copenhagen session. The less loaded word “risk” was mentioned 65 times in the final 40-page summary.
“Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive, and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts,” the report said.
World governments in 2009 set a goal of keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to before the industrial revolution. Temperatures have gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F) since the 19th century.
Emissions have risen so fast in recent years that the world has used up two-thirds of its carbon budget, the maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted to have a likely chance of avoiding 2 degrees of warming, the IPCC report said.
“This report makes it clear that if you are serious about the 2-degree goal … there is nowhere to hide,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. “You can’t wait several decades to address this issue.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the report demands “ambitious, decisive and immediate action.”
“Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids,” Kerry said in a statement.
The IPCC said the cost of actions such as shifting to solar and wind power and other renewable sources and improving energy efficiency would reduce economic growth only by 0.06 percent annually.
Pachauri said that should be measured against the implications of doing nothing, putting “all species that live on this planet” at peril.
The report is meant as a scientific roadmap for the U.N. climate negotiations, which continue next month in Lima, Peru. That’s the last major conference before a summit in Paris next year, where a global agreement on climate action is supposed to be adopted.
The biggest hurdle is deciding who should do what. Rich countries are calling on China and other major developing countries to set ambitious targets; developing countries saying the rich have a historical responsibility to lead the fight against warming and to help poorer nations cope with its impacts. The IPCC avoided taking sides, saying the risks of climate change “are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.”
AP: By KARL RITTER
Posted: 11/02/2014 7:35 am EST Updated: 11/03/2014 12:59 pm EST
IPCC Sounds Fresh Alarm as Fossil Fuel Interests Tighten Grip on Congress
The leading international network of climate scientists is urging a rapid shift away from fossil fuels, just as allies of coal, oil and natural gas industries in the United States appear poised to tighten their grip on Congress—where opposition to cleaner energy is already entrenched.
That outcome of Tuesday’s midterm election would spell trouble for advocates of a strong international climate accord. Treaty negotiations are supposed to pick up in the next few months and culminate in Paris just over a year from now.
This weekend, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a synthesis report that sums up its years-long review of the climate crisis and what to do about it. The report called for the near-complete elimination of fossil fuel-burning by the end of the century. This, it said, is what is needed to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the most severe risks of man-made changes to the world’s climate.
Nothing could be further from the agenda of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the coal-state Republican who on the eve of the election appears to have significantly better than even odds of becoming the next majority leader. (Though, as the IPCC might put it, until the last votes are tallied any forecast of which party will prevail deserves only “medium confidence.”)
Even if the Republicans don’t gain a majority in the Senate on Nov. 4, they are likely to gain strength in that chamber as well as in the House—an election outcome that would undermine President Obama’s entire climate agenda, not just his influence in the Paris talks.
From the Keystone XL pipeline decision and so-called “war on coal,” to a carbon tax and the very foundations of climate science, Congressional Republicans have opposed Obama on anything having to do with global warming from his first days in office.
Just last year, on the day the IPCC released one of three exhaustive treatments that formed the basis of this week’s synthesis report, McConnell co-sponsored an amendment to block the EPA from regulating fossil fuels in electric power plants, the largest single source of carbon emissions in this country.
His co-sponsor, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, offered another amendment at the same time. It would have prohibited the administration from participating in international climate negotiations “unless the U.S. offers an addendum to the latest IPCC report stating that anthropogenic climate change is a scientifically unproven theory.” Inhofe, who reportedly aspires to be chairman of the environment committee in a Republican Senate, calls the whole IPCC enterprisea “conspiracy” and “a hoax.”
Their ascent would alarm participants in the climate talks who agree with IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, that the climate crisis could be solved if action is quick and decisive. “All we need,” Pachauri said as he released the new synthesis report, “is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”
Emissions must fall by 40 to 70 percent between 2010 and 2050, and then to zero by 2100, he explained at a news conference.
Those are fighting words to anyone committed to defending the coal industry in Kentucky, the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma, or campaigning in any fossil fuel stronghold—from the Marcellus shale to the Bakken light oil play. And it helps explain why the politics of carbon are a feature of so many swing elections in states like West Virginia, Colorado, Louisiana and Alaska.
The contrast between this increasingly partisan American political divide and the increasingly solid international scientific consensus could hardly be starker.
“The scientists have done their jobs and then some,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has tracked the negotiations for decades. “Politicians can either dramatically reduce emissions or they can spend the rest of their careers running from climate disaster to climate disaster.”
Other environmental advocates, too, issued statements emphasizing that the synthesis report—including its summary for policymakers, expressly designed to guide them toward early action —was as significant politically as it was scientifically.
“The report is alarming and should be a wake-up call to government leaders,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a group that encourages businesses to show leadership on climate issues. Her statement called on them to “ramp up the pressure…especially in Washington.”
“The critical missing link is the oil and gas industry, which is doing its best to thwart concrete action,” she said.
The Sierra Club’s Michael Brune aimed a jibe at the Koch brothers and their favored candidates, saying that “we don’t have any more time to coddle fossil fuel billionaires or politicians who will eschew responsibility at every corner.”
Big environmental groups have spent heavily in this campaign, too—$85 million on state and federal races, according to Daniel Weiss of the League of Conservation Voters, including $40 million on just six key Senate races. And in the closing days, they were knocking on millions of doors to bring out a green vote.
The organizations released results from a Hart Research Associates poll taken in late October in swing states suggesting that the climate issue could break in their favor.
“The survey suggests that Republican candidates are losing ground as a result of their climate science denial and opposition to climate pollution reductions,” Hart reported. “This is true among independent swing voters, and particularly among women and younger voters.”
But only about 40 percent of those surveyed said they had heard much of candidates’ views on climate. A majority had heard about energy issues, but far more about abortion, jobs and Obamacare.
Leaked Final Draft Of U.N. Climate Report Shows Dire Global Warming Predictions
BY ARI PHILLIPS, POSTED ON OCTOBER 27, 2014
Delegates from more than 100 governments and many of the world’s top climate scientists are meeting in Copenhagen this week to finalize a report that will be used as a foundation for important upcoming climate summits. The leaked United Nations draft report, due to be published on Nov. 2nd, says climate change may have “serious, pervasive and irreversible” impacts on human society and nature.
Hopes are set on a new, post-Kyoto Protocol global climate agreement to be reached at the Paris summit at the end of 2015. There will a major climate meeting in Lima, Peru at the end of this year to help set the framework for the 2015 gathering.
“The report will be a guide for us,” Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, told Reuters.
This final report is a synthesis of three comprehensive IPCC reports published over the course of the last year. Those reports focused on the physical science; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and mitigation. This flagship report received over 2,000 comments from government officials relating to changes to be made prior to publication.
According to a Reuters analysis, many governments want the draft to be written in a more clear and accessible manner with a focus on extreme weather events such as storms, heat waves, and floods. The U.S. wrote that the report needs to be useful for those without deep technical knowledge of climate issues.
“What about drought? Cyclones? Wildfires? Policymakers care deeply about extreme events,” the U.S. team wrote. “After all, in many ways it is how extreme events will change that will determine many of the (near-term, at least) impacts from climate change. As such, the authors should strongly consider saying more about the projected changes in extreme events.”
>U.S. commenters also wrote that the report should stress impacts on rich countries more, saying “there are very few references to the vulnerability of wealthier countries to climate change.”
The E.U. team wrote that “the key messages should contain more substance that can help guide policy makers rather than general overarching statements,” and that “the overall storyline … is sometimes not clear and still looks fragmented.”
While the report warns of the dire consequences of the continued rise of GHGs, it also says the worst impacts can still be avoided. It states that a combination of adaptation and substantial, sustained reductions in GHGs can limit climate change risks and reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation.
Over the past five years some 2,000 scientists worked on the fifth iteration of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’s Assessment Report. With leaders gathering to finalize the report this week, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, urged world governments not to be overcome by hopelessness as they engage in negotiations.
“May I humbly suggest that policymakers avoid being overcome by the seeming hopelessness of addressing climate change,” he said. “Tremendous strides are being made in alternative sources of clean energy. There is much we can do to use energy more efficiently. Reducing and ultimately eliminating deforestation provides additional avenues for action.”
In one hopeful indication, last week leaders of the European Union agreed to cut emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. European leaders hope this will build momentum for when the bloc hosts the critical Paris climate summit next year, and that it will encourage other major emitters yet to make pledges — such as the U.S. and China — to rise to the occasion. Countries have until early next year to announce the targets they intend to negotiate with at the Paris summit.
Earth’s About to Lose What Little Chance It Had – Unless We Act Now!
Who’s Gonna Stand Up
Neil Young’s Who’s Gonna Stand Up (and Save the Earth)
Protect the wild, tomorrow’s child
Protect the land from the greed of man
Take down the dams, stand up to oil
Protect the plants, and renew the soil
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me
Damn the dams, save the rivers
Starve the takers and feed the givers
Build a dream, save the world
We’re the people know as earth
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me
Ban fossil fuel, draw the line
Before we build, one more pipeline
Ban fracking now, save the waters
And build a life, for our sons and daughters
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me
Who’s gonna stand up
Who’s gonna stand up
Who’s gonna stand up
Who’s gonna stand up
Who’s gonna stand up
Who’s Gonna Stand Up (and Save the Earth)?
(full orchestra & choir version)
Start here. Sign “Conserve NOW Petition to President Obama, U.S. Congress, Wisconsin Governor Walker and Wisconsin Legislature to Enact and Fund Climate Change Legislation” (September 16th post on this blog) or;
I’ve also started the petition “U.S. Congress: Enact and Fund Legislation to Pay Families and Individuals who Use Less Fossil Fuel Energy Annually on Changeorg
Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here’s the link:
Here’s why it’s important:
Using money that now goes to subsidize the fossil fuel industries (coal, oil, natural gas), instead offer that money to those who limit their driving, flying and household use of fossil fuel devived energy. This would helpslow global warming and sea level rises and would negate the need for raising the minimum wage and foodstamps.
You can sign my petition by clicking here.
.
Thanks
Answer “No” to Transportation Amendment on November 4th Ballot
Wisconsin law presently requires that specific revenue streams, such as gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and license fees collected from motor vehicle owners, be deposited into the transportation fund; however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has recognized that the Wisconsin Legislature may, at times, have greater needs other than transportation, and it is therefore authorized to transfer certain amounts from the Transportation Fund to non-transportation state needs, such as education, health care, and shared revenue.
However, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the highway building industry – which includes such contracting entities as the Wisconsin road and bridge builders (the Transportation Builders Association), sand and gravel suppliers, cement and asphalt production companies, trucking firms, and other businesses financially tied to transportation in Wisconsin, have been very vocal in their criticisms of the previous administration’s use of some transportation generated money for purposes not financially benefiting Wisconsin’s transportation infrastructure.
So a Transportation Amendment referendum question was approved for placement on the November 4th ballot which, if the majority of Wisconsin voters answer “yes” (to Question 1 on the ballot), would so amend Wisconsin’s Constitution to mandate that all money generated by transportation taxes in Wisconsin after December 31, 2010 be deposited into the state’s Transportation Fund, and furthermore that no such money be lapsed, further transferred, or used for any program that is not directly administered by the department of transportation, in furtherance of the department’s responsibility for the planning, promotion, and protection of all transportation systems in the state. In short, all transportation collected money could only be used for transportation purposes if the majority of people voting on November 4th answer “yes” to Referendum Question #1.
If the majority of Wisconsin voters on November 4th answer “no” to amending Wisconsin’s Constitution regarding the Transportation Amendment, tax money from transportation in Wisconsin would still be deposited in the Transportation Fund and used for transportation; however, certain amounts approved by the Legislature for use in other state programs or the state budget other than for transportation projects would be permissible. The Wisconsin Constitution would not therefore be amended to provide for the exclusive use of motor vehicle fuel taxes and annual vehicle registration fees by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for road and bridge expansion, reconstruction, and rehabilitation programs.
Wisconsin Senator Fred Risser recommends voters answer “no” to the Transportation Fund Constitutional Amendment, saying “it serves no useful purpose to submit to the highway lobby and guarantee them a constitutionally protected fund that can never be touched even in the case of economic crisis or statewide emergency”.
Wisconsin’s highway and bridge system and its use, and other state and federal highway systems and their use, have already exceeded the level of environmental and fiscal sustainability. In addition to the billions of dollars of state and federal money that has been collected and awarded to various highway and bridge contractor from Transportation Funds, there have been very real damages inflicted on Wisconsin’s and other state’s natural landscapes, wildlife and wildlife habitat, the climate and the human population. Despite many of these costs being significantly high, they are seldom quantified and simply go unpaid. Most (loss of wildlife habitat, climate change, small particle pollution) are growing more serious over time.
The public health impacts from 60 billion motor vehicle miles being driven annually in the state are growing evermore significant and serious (from climate change, loss of green space, farmland loss, small particle air pollution). Yet we have seen no actions being undertaken or even discussed so far by the Governor Scott Walker administration, the Wisconsin Legislature, or candidate for governor Mary Burke. Action is needed to encourage less fossil fuel burning vehicular travel in the state, to mitigate for many impacts that have already occurred or are still occurring, and to prepare for a climate that will be rapidly changing.
Despite seeing motor vehicle driving in Wisconsin finally leveling off, after decades of growth, the state and federal governments are planning to continue pouring vast sums of money into the construction of new highways and the expansion of old ones. Wisconsin’s governor is leading the way, with Wisconsin the politically powerful road and bridge building industry’s support.
Today’s Wisconsin State Journal newspaper states that Governor Scott Walker, in meeting with the State Journal’s editorial board Monday, said that he is considering replacing the state’s current gasoline tax with a sales tax on gas and alternative vehicle fuel sources “to stabilize long-term transportation funding in the state”. The state currently taxes gasoline, blended gasoline, and diesel fuel for motor vehicle fuel at a flat rate of 31 cents per gallon. The present gasoline tax generates about $1 billion in revenue for the Transportation Fund. The tax on is levied on gasoline suppliers but in turn gets build into the pump price. (The state also taxes liquefied propane gas, compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas but not electricity, although The Journal reports Walker saying “that’s something that needs to be considered”.
Neither Walker nor Democratic challenger for governor Mary Burke have identified any specific plans for addressing the state’s projected $680 million shortfall in the Transportation Fund in the next biennial budget, according to the Wisconsin State Journal report written by Mathew DeFour and Mary Spicuzza and published October 14, 2014. The state will be short $15.3 billion in the Transportation Budget over the next decade according to a state transportation commission reported last year, despite there being fewer annual vehicle miles predicted to be traveled on the state highways in the coming years.
As alluded to previously (above), there is serious and significant concern regarding the continued burning of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from motor vehicles travelly 60 billion miles, or 600 billion miles since 2004. The reason is that these gases, in particular carbon dioxide, have already accumulated to record high levels in the atmosphere, and the added accumulation of them in the atmosphere is growing ever more dangerous. Presently, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has reached record of over 400 parts per millions in the atmosphere, which is 42% above the CO2 concentration level present in the atmosphere before the Industrial Age. We are now witnessing rising sea levels from thermal expansion of water and ice melt over lands on an unprecedented scale.
Roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned in a motor vehicle. Even if we assume that all vehicles driven in the state achieved 2013’s record high efficiency of 24.1 miles per gallon, this amounts to roughly 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline being burned on Wisconsin’s highways each year, which translates into 50 billion pounds (25 million tons) of carbon dioxide being emitted from tailpipes each year, or 250 tons over the last decade. Since carbon dioxide has a lifetime exceeding 100 years in the atmosphere, much of this CO2 will still be in the atmosphere by the end of this century, along with CO2 and other greenhouse gases accumulations.
Not only should the state be working harder and faster on reducing it’s GHG emissions – it should not be prohibited from using transportation generated money for this purpose. In fact, there should be a moratorium on adding more capacity (lane) for additional use of motor vehicles on the state’s highway system. This would save the state $3 billion in taxpayer money that is slated for highway expansion now, including work of the I-94 south of Madison project and the addition of two more lanes of Beltline highway in the vicinity of the Verona Road/Beltline interchange in Madison.
As discussed in a previous post on this blog, high motor vehicle traffic areas also generate dangerous levels of small and ultra small particle pollution. It has been reported in numerous that people who live very close to heavy traffic and get exposed to high levels of ultra fine particle pollution have more health problems, including heart and vascular problems. Transportation Funds should be used to minimize and mitigate for these transportation related health costs.
Verona Road/Beltline Expansion: despite the majority of people speaking at a meeting held by DOT in 2003 saying they were opposed to more motor vehicle traffic in the areas of West Madison near the proposed project, DOT proceeded with it plan for the project anyway, as expected.
Health Effects of Small Particle Pollution from Heavy Motor Vehicle Traffic
What people cannot see can be very harmful. In 2012, a report on the Global Burden of Disease found that pollution from dangerous tiny particles and droplets in the air — what scientists call “fine particulate matter” — is among the leading causes of death and severe disability. According to estimates in this report, over 3.2 million deaths per year may be attributable to people breathing dangerous particles in their general environment, and another 3.6 million deaths happen because of polluted air attributed to burning solid fuels for heating or cooking in developing countries. To put the danger in perspective: the total deaths from particulate air pollution are greater than 6.3 million deaths each year from tobacco use.
The bad health news about dangerous particles in the air is not confined to fine particulate matter which is spread broadly across metropolitan regions, however. I direct a study called the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health that looks at air pollution from even tinier particles — “ultrafine particles” — that are concentrated next to freeways and other places with a lot of motor vehicle traffic. Pockets of this kind of invisible, odorless and often overlooked air pollution may be especially dangerous for people to live and work next to busy highways. My research group is developing innovative ways to assess the hazard and protect people from exposure to health risks.
Health dangers from particles in the air
Many people suppose that respiratory diseases are the main risk from breathing in polluted air, but in fact the major health risks are from cardiovascular diseases. Breathing in fine particles from vehicle emissions, power plants, or burning fuels causes inflammation that spreads throughout the body in the blood, contributing to hardening of the arteries and increased risks for heart attacks and strokes.
Most research on particle pollution in the air has so far focused on fine particles in the surrounding air. This kind of pollution is not spread evenly around the world. Very high pollution levels in China and India, for example, result in approximately two million deaths a year from exposure to fine particles. But even in countries like the United States, where pollution levels have been regulated for decades and skies are usually relatively clear, there is still a surprisingly high level of deaths from breathing dangerous fine particles. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths per year are attributable to dangerous fine particles spewed into the air, primarily from power plants and motor vehicles.
Measurements of the health effects of ultrafine particles are less well developed — and that is what my research colleagues and I are tackling. Conventional fine particle air pollution tends to be spread evenly over wide areas — such as whole cities — but ultrafine particle pollution can be high in small, local areas, next to a highway or major roadway, for example. Pollution concentrations can move around and go up and down rapidly. Researchers have not looked as much at ultrafine particle air pollution in part because the fast-changing levels make it hard to pin down exactly how much people are exposed to.
Researchers often do tests on animals to see how dangerous various kinds of pollution might be for people, and ultrafine particles in the air turn out to be more toxic in animal studies than similar concentrations of fine particles. Investigations looking at people have found that when ultrafine particle pollution levels go up and down, measures of health problems also rise and fall in the weeks that follow. Particularly worrisome, people who live very close to heavy traffic and get exposed to high levels of ultrafine particle pollution also have more health problems, including heart and vascular problems, according to available studies. Air monitoring has repeatedly shown ultrafine particles are elevated next to highways and major roadways, but researchers are still working to fully connect the dots between ultrafine exposure and its health effects in people.
In the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health study, my colleagues and I are measuring exposure to ultrafine particles in the air for people living at various distances from a highway and testing for health risks. Our full findings are not yet ready to report, but we have published some early papers that demonstrate both elevated ultrafine particle levels and higher disease risks for people who live closer to highways. We expect to be able to give more precise estimates of degrees of exposure and health risks in the near future.
Addressing the highway air pollution problem
Over the past half century, air in many parts of the United States has gone from sometimes looking cloudy and soot-filled, much like the air over much of China today, to clearer skies. Over many decades, America figured out how to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter from smoke stacks and tail pipes, phasing in increasingly effective pollution-reducing technologies. But we are at earlier stages in developing awareness of the measurable dangers from ultrafine particle pollution — and finding solutions to reduce those dangers.
My research group is actively looking for workable solutions — such as installing various forms of air filtration as a possible way to protect people who live or work next to highways or heavy traffic. Early experiments on public housing units near highways have not achieved the reductions we hoped for, but we are continuing to test ideas. In addition, we are working with municipal agencies, regional planners and design experts to draft local ordinances that might be protective. So far, only California has ordinances that restrict the building of schools next to freeways, and many places might need such rules for parks, public plazas and other community institutions as well.
The bottom line is that particulate matter in the air — including very tiny and invisible particles in air near highways — is the most important and dangerous environmental health threat. Yet the dangers are insufficiently recognized by the public and policy makers. Better evidence can educate the public and inspire new efforts to tackle serious health risks. We already know that risks from ultrafine air pollution near highways are serious — and they may turn out to be even more worrisome than we know so far. Research can help communities prepare to take action.
Source: Scholars Strategy Network, written by Doug Brugge, Tufts University School of Medicine – See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollution-environment/health-risks-polluted-air-freeways#sthash.ViZVW4zM.dpuf
Learn More.
Wisconsin Public Radio Promotes Fossil Fuel Burning
Although I listen regularly to Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR)’s news and talk shows, and I just renewed my annual membership with them (with a $120.00 donation), I told them with my renewal that I was not interested in entering their vacation trip sweepstakes, to travel to France, take a cruise ship in Alaska, or travel Germany and France by way of the Rhine River this December. WPR regularly sponsors vacation trips (through travel agencies) for listeners to fly to various resorts around the world, presumably as fundraiser events.
I have told them in more than one email message and by phone during last month’s call-in show with their news director that I don’t support their promoting and coordinating travel by people from Wisconsin taking long distance vacations by jet airplane to exotic places because of the tremendous volumes of fossil fuel burned by jet airplanes flying thousands of miles, to and from foreign vacation resorts. It would be far better for everyone, here, if Wisconsin vacationers stayed closer to home, spending their vacation money within their home state, and thus benefiting Wisconsin’s economy and sparing the atmosphere from receiving huge quantities of planet warming greenhouse gases.
Following is a copy of a recent message I sent them:
“Thank you for taking my comments about the long term global warming effects from the abundant amount of greenhouse gases from people taking WPR sponsored flying/vacation trips. As I said before, flying by jet airplane is the worst thing an individual can do for the future of our planet. The impending global warming catastrophe is right around the corner.”
“I’m surprised WPR continues to sponsor these trips in light of having a number of excellent guests and programs attesting to this. Even President Obama agrees the earth is warming, the ocean are warming and rising, and the cummulative effect of rising concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans is a grave threat to our world and especially children who will grow up in a far less hospitable world than the world that was passed onto us.”
When I called in and talked to the director, he said WPR’s contract with the travel agency requires passengers to “offset” their carbon emissions from the flight with sources that take an equal amount of carbon dioxide out of the air. See article on pros and cons of “justifying” flying by purchasing offsetting factors.
Below is a copy of another email I sent to WPR, sent 10-13-2014:
“Although I do love public radio, in particular the ideas network, I do NOT love WPR’s promotion of fossil fuel burning via it’s sponsoring and prize vacations at exotic locations thousands of miles from our home state. I do not believe buying into “tradeoff” C02 sequesters offset the extremely large volume of greenhouse gases that long distance vacations produce.”
Earth’s warming might be viewed of as a water glass, filled with water (the oceans), and ice (the polar ice caps and Earth’s mountainous glaciers). With a constant heat source (a stable “greenhouse effect”), the ice in the glass will remain roughly unchanged over time, the average temperature of the water in the glass will also remain unchanged (as did the Earth’s global average temperature). However, should the temperature surrounding the water and ice increase (i.e. due to an increase in the “greenhouse effect”, or global warming), the ice in the glass will gradually melt away, and once it melts, the temperature of the water in the glass will warm much faster, until equilibrium is reached, whatever temperature that might be, depending on the energy source, and the strength of the growing “greenhouse effect”.
WPR says it’s impartial on topics it chooses to air. When it come to preserving the livability of our planet, its actions are speaking louder than words because they sponsor these trips. WPR employees are state employees. State employees should be role models for people wanting to minimizing their global footprint. Promoting travel to exotic places is about the worst thing they could do. They should stop it. It’s morally not the right thing to do to save the planet. it’s more sustainable to take vacations in your home state and keep the local economy healthy the Earth from getting an even higher temperature/
Contact WPR’s Audience Service,..s at 1-800-747-7444 and listener@wpr.org and tell them to stop doing these trips.
U.S. Congress Needs to Take Action to Slow Climate Change and Ensure Public Saftey
Julia Pierson, a 30-year veteran of the Secret Service agency who became director in 2013, was forced to resign under pressure as director Wednesday after breaches of White House security that resulted in nobody getting hurt and no damage to property.
The U.S. Congress has 535 members: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. The One Hundred Thirteenth United States Congress first met in Washington, D.C. on January 3, 2013, and is scheduled to end on January 3, 2015. Widespread public dissatisfaction with the institution has increased in recent years, and some commentators have ranked it among the worst in United States congressional history. According to a Gallup Poll released in August 2014, the 113th Congress had the highest disapproval rating of any Congress since 1974, when data first started being collected: 83% of Americans surveyed said that they disapproved of the job Congress was doing, while only 13% said that they approved.
So why aren’t we forcing some of these folks to resign?
A New York Times/CBS News poll found that nearly half of Americans believe that global warming is causing a serious impact now, while about 60 percent said that protecting the environment should be a priority “even at the risk of curbing economic growth.”
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said that global warming is caused by human activity. This, the New York Times notes, is the “highest level ever recorded by the national poll.”
Those results echo those of another survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which found that more than 70 percent of Americans believe climate change is either a critical or an important threat “to the vital interests” of the country, while more than 80 percent said that combating climate change is either a “very important” or “somewhat important” goal for the U.S.
The survey also found that 50 percent of the American public believe that the government is not doing enough to address the problem of climate change. According to poll makers, this is an increase of five percentage points from 2012 poll results.
Dealing appropriately with reducing causes of global warming and insuring protection of citizens from climate change is government responsibility. But this Congress (and the Congresses preceding it) have failed to act on it, as have many states, Wisconsin included. They all ought consider resignation for their failure to enact legislation to slow global warming and ensure the America public is protected from climate change.
Picture – 35,000 walruses are swarming Alaska’s shore — because their sea ice is vanishing
New images captured by NOAA aerial surveys of the Alaska coast on September 27 show an estimated 35,000 walruses ashore near Point Lay. (Corey Arrardo / NOAA/NMFS/AFSC/NMML)
.
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
― Plato
All Things Environmental 
Recent Comments