Citizen’s Group Challenges Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s Permit to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Allowing Railway Expansion
A BNSF Railway freight train loaded with crude oil burns near the Illinois Wisconsin border last week near Galena, Illinois.
As crude oil trains rumble through Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responsible for issuing permits for bridges over navigable water, has been challenged by “Citizens Acting for Rail Safety” for its recently permitted rail expansion in the La Crosse River marsh.
Following a fiery train derailment last week in Galena, Illinois, near the Wisconsin border, the Department of Natural Resources is facing a legal challenge over its permit to allow wetland filling and building a bridge to facilitate more crude oil shipments through the state.
With help from the nonprofit Midwest Environmental Advocates, members of the group Citizens Acting for Rail Safety filed a petition for judicial review in La Crosse County Circuit Court asking a judge to block a wetland permit and to require the DNR to complete a more thorough environmental review of the project.
The DNR last month granted BNSF a permit to fill 7.2 acres of the marsh and build a bridge over the river as part of a plans to add about four miles of new tracks through the city of La Crosse between Farnam and Gillette streets.
At the root of their concerns are the growing number of trains hauling highly explosive crude oil from North Dakota, such as the 105-car train that derailed last Thursday near Galena, Ill., causing at least five cars to burst into flames.
That fire continued to burn until Sunday morning, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is overseeing the response and monitoring the nearby Galena and Mississippi rivers for potential contamination.
“The marsh project being considered is one of a series of projects intended to facilitate even more traffic flow,” said Ralph Knudson, one of the petitioners. “An Environmental Impact Statement would compel a thorough look at all aspects of construction and operation of rail lines for opportunities to minimize risk and protect the marsh environment and public assets.”
DNR water management specialist Carrie Olson previously said the department decided against a full EIS because her two-month review of BNSF’s permit application covered most of the same ground.
But Sarah Williams, staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that does not comply with the state’s Environmental Policy Act.
The petition says the agency did not take into account the environmental and public safety risks associated with the derailment of a train carrying hazardous materials, the disturbance to neighbors from increased train traffic and the incremental impact of continuing to fill in the marsh, which has been reduced over the years to about half its original size.
It also questions the transparency of the review process.
Knudson wondered whether anyone would have known about a Jan. 7 public hearing — attended by more than 150 people — had the citizens groups not publicized it, according to a report by Chris Hubbuch of the Lacrosse Tribune.
While the DNR posted a legal notice of the meeting, the agency did not send out a press release.
“Our strategy here is just to really have our public service agencies — in this case the DNR — be as accountable as possible for what their mission is, and to be as open as possible about their process,” he said.
BNSF’s La Crosse project is one of 13 planned upgrades the railroad is making to its route along the Mississippi River between the Twin Cities and the Illinois border.
BNSF says the La Crosse upgrade will ease delays at each end of what is the area’s only section of single track. Opponents say it will lead to increased train traffic, a position supported by the railroad’s permit applications.
The marsh project is still awaiting a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is still considering BNSF’s application. State and federal lawmakers have joined the call for a comprehensive study known as an Environmental Impact Statement.
The citizens also petitioned the DNR for an internal review of the permitting process. In each case, the DNR and BNSF will now have an opportunity to respond before any ruling.
The suit says the DNR did not conduct a full environmental impact statement when it granted the permit to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for a second set of tracks through the La Crosse River Marsh.
More than 40 oil trains now rumble through the state each week from North Dakota, many with more than 100 tank cars, some passing through Sauk, Columbia and Jefferson counties.
Petitioners are asking the La Crosse County Circuit Court to reverse a permit granted last month and force the DNR to do a more thorough analysis under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), a 1972 law that required sound decision-making by state agencies.
“As we have seen with recent derailments like the one that happened in Galena, last Thursday, today’s rail traffic is much riskier than a few years ago,” said Ralph Knudson of Citizens Acting for Rail Safety in a statement. “The marsh project being considered is one of a series of projects intended to facilitate even more traffic flow.”
Changes to NR Chapter 150 in 2014 now allow the state to meet requirements of WEPA without doing an environmental assessment. This change in state law allowed the bridge and wetland permit to go forward with a minimum amount of public review, according to the Madison offices of Midwest Environmental Advocates, which is assisting the citizen’s group.
“Compliance with WEPA isn’t just a paper exercise or a box to check,” said MEA attorney Sarah Williams.
The lawsuit notes a series of risks with the expansion of rail traffic through the La Crosse marsh.
They include:
• the threat of a more train derailments with increased shipments of hazardous materials
• impact on nesting bald eagles
• noise and air pollution for neighbors living near the tracks
• filling of the La Crosse River Marsh, which has already been reduced to half its original size by previous developments.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis) on Monday issued a joint statement calling for the Obama Administration to take immediate action to address oil train safety. The U.S. Department of Transportation was to have finalized new rules to address oil tank car safety but has missed a Jan. 15 deadline.
The statement noted that just a few years ago it was rare to see an oil train in Wisconsin but today more than 40 oil trains a week pass through the state, many with 100 or more tank cars.
“The danger facing Wisconsin communities located near rail lanes has materialized quickly,” the statement said. “It is clear that the increase in oil moving on the rails has corresponded with an uptick in oil train derailments.”
Wisconsin Legislature Votes to Call “Extraordinary Sessions” for Wrong Reasons
Organizing committees of both the Wisconsin Senate and Wisconsin Assembly called both houses of the Wisconsin legislature into extraordinary sessions this week to pass a “right-to-work” bill, making it illegal for employers and labor unions to charge their employees and any new employees union dues as a condition of accepting employment. The Wisconsin State Journal reported in today’s newspaper edition that the full Senate could vote on this highly charged legislation (Senate Bill 44) as early as Wednesday and the Wisconsin Assembly could vote on this legislation (AB 61) as soon as Monday.
Governor Scott Walker has said he would sign the bill into law.
The Senate and Assembly organizing committees ought have called their “extraordinary” sessions to address what the State of Wisconsin ought do to protect its citizens from global warming and climate change instead. Greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and climate change are far more significant to the future of Wisconsin than are unions charging union dues in the state.
Positive Incentives Plan Wages Three-Prong-Attack Against Climate Change
Please refer to “About this Blog” before proceeding.
The planet Venus is on the left; Earth is on the right. Nobody wants to see Earth go the route its that its commonly called twin planet Venus took, eons ago. You see Venus once had oceans of water, too, just like Earth does. But something went very wrong on the surface of Venus (possibly it is because the Sun got hotter), which started a “runaway greenhouse effect”. The oceans of water Venus once had boiled away. As temperatures began rising ocean water converted to water vapor, also a strong greenhouse gas. The water vapor increased the effectiveness of heat trapping and accelerated the greenhouse effect, which caused the temperature at the surface to rise further, thus causing the oceans to evaporate faster, etc., etc. This type of runaway is also called a “positive feedback loop”. When the oceans were gone the atmosphere finally stabilized at a much higher temperature and at much higher density, making the planet uninhabitable.
The sobering warning for us is obvious: we have to be extremely concerned about processes such as burning of fossil fuels in large volumes that might have the potential to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and produce on the Earth atmospheric conditions that are incapable of supporting life.
That is why it is so essential that we initiate actions now, worldwide, to curb all forms of unnecessary activity that causes the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere to strengthen (meaning an increase concentrations of greenhouse gases). Carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, has increased in concentration in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million (ppm) in the 1880’s to 400 ppm today – mainly the result of humans burning coal, oil. and natural gas, the combustion producing significant amounts of (invisible) CO2.
As a result, the global average annual temperature of the Earth at the surface has risen, the temperature of Earth’s oceans have been increasing and, as a result of the ice melting off of the island of Greenland, the continent of Antarctica, and water runs down the mountainous glaciers on practically all the continents, and the property of the thermal expansion of water, Earth’s oceans levels are rising.
Meanwhile, the Earth’s once solid permafrost region, which is approximately 1/5 of the Earth’s surface, is now thawing in many places, decomposing,and releasing methane to the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas 37 times as strong as CO2 in trapping heat.
Furthermore, replacement of large areas of ice and white snow surface (ice cap) on the Arctic Ocean means the open Arctic ocean water absorbs more of the radiant heat from the Sun, causing the ice and snow to melt even faster still, an so on. If it were not for the vast amounts of ice in the Arctic Ocean, the water would warm even faster.
It is essential that people and businesses, the world over, especially those in countries burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, in power generation, motorized transportation and jet travel, for human travel and shipping, find alternatives that don’t burn fossil fuels for their pursuits. Presently, citizens from the United States fly 40% more than citizens from other countries, and more U.S. citizens are buying gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks than more fuel efficient vehicles – because gas is “cheap” again, They remain apathetic about global warming, or are members of the “Earth is flat” society. As John Lennon once said, “apathy is it”. The Earth is also round. Above all, we need to Conserve, NOW!
Wisconsin Must Join the All Out World Effort to Fight Global Climate Change Without Delay, BEFORE Time Runs Out
Wisconsin has traditionally prided itself as being a state that “cares”. Wisconsin residents care about its wild and domestic animals, its fish, birds and butterflies; its plants, trees, and its forests; its tens of thousands of lakes, streams and rivers, and the quality of its wetlands, groundwater and air; its mighty bluffs and gorges, its remaining prairies, and the state’s overall majestic scenic beauty.
Wisconsin has traditionally had a strong manufacturing economy, a top notch agricultural industry, a public education system second to none, a world class university system, and an equally top notch private schools, colleges, and other educational institutions. Wisconsin also boasts an excellent highway, airport, and bicycle transportation system, and communities that are walking and wheelchair friendly. It has always held all visitors to the state in high regards and treated them with respect the production and sustainability of its farms, the well being of its human population, without regard for race, heritage or creed. Wisconsinites treat visitors to their state with respect and dignity,satisfaction of its visitors and transients alike, and, perhaps above all, in leaving its land, water and its economy better condition than they received it. In a nutshell, that’s a statement of Wisconsin’s traditions and value, as I have come to know them.
Wisconsin residents often boast, and rightly so, that Wisconsin was the home of such renown conservationists and humanists as John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Senator Gaylord Nelson, Midge Miller and Vel Phillips. In the 1970s, Wisconsin was emulated by other states as the state to look at for developing effective environmental protection regulations to safeguard its treasures. With Wisconsin Departmental Resource Secretary Anthony “Tony” Earl at the helm, who would later become Wisconsin’s governor, and George “Knute” Knudson as its chief naturalist, Wisconsin natural resources were in good hands.
It is no exaggeration to say that all this is at risk the longer our Wisconsin Legislature, our governor, other state legislatures and governors, and the people’s representatives in the United States Congress continue to kick the issue of excess fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas production by Americans down the road. What we don’t need is more highway development and expansion and more airport capacity expansion that encourage even more fossil fuel burning by the public. What we don’t need is more trade with distant countries that requires more fuel for shipping and flying. What we don’t need are more coal and natural gas burning power plants and the thousands of miles of high voltage transmission lines that go with them, and not Wisconsin power companies who restructure their rates in favor of more fossil fuel burning, thus discouraging their customers from investing in solar energy panels for their homes and businesses, and having the governor’s appointed Wisconsin Public Service Commission (the PSC) “rubber stamps” the fossil-fuel-dependent utilities’ proposals.
We are wasting valuable time and money by not relying less and less on fossil fuel dependent energy, and more on either energy conservation or on conversion to solar and wind generated power, in our homes, businesses and institutions; and that we desperately need to reduce aggregate driving and flying, which rely almost exclusively on burning fossil fuels that, when subject to combustion, release large quantities of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), to the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gases, such as CO2, remain in the atmosphere for centuries, accumulating to increasingly more ominous concentration levels, or they get absorbed in the oceans, making the earth’s ocean water more acidic, harming the biological species in the oceans.
But scientists the world over are in agreement that the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases from significantly increased fossil fuel burning by humans since the time of the Industrial Revolution (early 1800’s) have remained in earth’s atmosphere, trapping more and more of the Sun’s radiant energy and changing it into heat energy, causing the earth’s surface to warm, melting more of the polar ice caps and mountain glaciers, causing the vast permafrost region to thaw, releasing more and more methane gas, another greenhouse gas that’s known to have 37 times the heat-trapping power of CO2.
Scientists don’t know when global warming could begin accelerating, but it could be any day now. What they do know is that there are higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now to push global surface temperatures much higher than what we have experienced thus far. Time is of the essence for the world’s populations who are relying on fossil fuel burning for energy to stop adding even higher concentration levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, risking setting off positive feedback mechanisms in the system that could worsen the situation and amplify the weather extremes global warming has already caused in earth’s climate.
Thousands Protest Governor Brown’s Allowing Fracking for Fossil Fuels in Oakland, California
Several thousand demonstrators turned out in Oakland Saturday for a protest against hydraulic fracturing in California. The controversial technique, also known as fracking, uses high pressure water and chemicals to harvest oil and natural gas.
The demonstration was one of the largest public against fracking recently, and it was held in Governor Jerry Brown’s home town of Oakland for a reason. Environmentalists are taking aim at Governor Brown who used to be a political darling of the movement in his first tour as governor in the 1970’s.
Event organizers say Governor Brown’s administration has given a green light to oil companies to drill in California. The state is the third highest oil producer in the country.
Fracking has recently gained more interest after records analyzed by the Associated Press found that California regulators allowed oil companies to re-inject hydraulic fracturing fluids back into federally protected aquifers.
People from across the state converged in Oakland for this event.
“I came up by bus this morning. And I’m doing this because I believe in a future for all human life and all life on earth, and I believe it’s time for us to create a whole other way of being human,” said Cindy Dixon of Paso Robles.
During a news conference Friday, Governor Brown challenged protesters when he said they, along with most other Californians are still getting around on gas guzzling cars, trucks and buses.
Gas prices have been falling dramatically in the last six months, in part because of increased oil drilling in the United States. But it’s also because newer cars are more fuel efficient, and countries like Saudi Arabia have continued to pump oil despite a worldwide oil glut.
Source: ABC News – Oakland
Countries in Lima, Peru Ought to Declare World War III Against Global Warming and Catestrophic Climate Change
A day after December 7, 1941, the day U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “will live in infamy” when Imperial Japan attacked the U.S.naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the United States entered World War II as the U.S.Congress declared against the Empire of Japan, which aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937. World War II had already been initiated by the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom. From late 1939 to early 1941, Germany conquered or controlled much of continental Europe, and formed the Axis alliance with Italy and Japan. In June 1941, the Axis alliance launched an invasion of the Soviet Union. Japan attacked the United States that December, European territories in the Pacific Ocean, and the Empire of Japan quickly conquered much of the Western Pacific.
But during 1944 and 1945 the Japanese suffered major reverses in mainland Asia in South Central China and Burma, while the Allies crippled the Japanese Navy and captured key Western Pacific islands and the war in Europe ended with an invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union culminating in the capture of Berlin by Soviet and Polish troops and the subsequent German unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945. Following the Potsdam Declaration by the Allies on 26 July 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August, 1945, respectively.
The Axis advance halted in 1942 when Japan lost the critical Battle of Midway, near Hawaii, and Germany was defeated in North Africa and then, decisively, at Stalingrad in the Soviet Union. In 1943, with a series of German defeats on the Eastern Front, the Allied invasion of Italy which brought about Italian surrender, and Allied victories in the Pacific, the Axis lost the initiative and undertook strategic retreat on all fronts. In 1944, the Western Allies invaded France, while the Soviet Union regained all of its territorial losses and invaded Germany and its allies.
The war in Europe ended with an invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union culminating in the capture of Berlin by Soviet and Polish troops and the subsequent German unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945. With an invasion of the Japanese imminent, the possibility of additional atomic bombings, and the Soviet Union’s declaration of war on Japan and invasion of Manchuria; Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. Thus ended the war in Asia, and the final destruction of the Axis bloc. During 1944 and 1945 the Japanese suffered major reverses in mainland Asia in South Central China and Burma, while the Allies crippled the Japanese Navy and captured key Western Pacific islands.Following the Potsdam Declaration by the Allies on 26 July 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August respectively. With an invasion of the Japanese archipelago imminent, the possibility of additional atomic bombings, and the Soviet Union’s declaration of war on Japan and invasion of Manchuria, Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. Thus ended the war in Asia, and the final destruction of the Axis bloc.
World War II altered the political alignment and social structure of the world. The United Nations (UN) was established to foster international co-operation and prevent future conflicts.
World War II altered the political alignment and social structure of the world. The United Nations (UN) was established to foster international co-operation and prevent future conflicts.
World War II was the most widespread war in history, it directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries, and the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. An estimated 50 to 85 million fatalities, including the Holocaust during which approximately 11 million civilian people, including more than 6 millions Jews, were killed. Up until, now, World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history.
Many thousands of people have already lost their lives and homes and businesses, those of their family, friends, and communities to extreme weather events brought about by the excessive collective burning of fossil fuels by humans over the last century which, coupled with excessive deforestation by humans, especially in the tropics, have resulted in unnaturally high concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, causing global warming, rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean and the loss of arctic sea ice and melting glaciers. The number of lives lost as a result of human-caused global warming will ultimately number in the billions, probably more. To be continued …
A Guide to the Lima Climate Change Talks
Representatives from more than 190 nations are meeting for talks in Lima, Peru (Dec. 1 – Dec. 14) to hammer out the draft of the first truly global pact to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The ultimate goal: signing a treaty a year from now in Paris. If successful, it would be the world’s most complex and encompassing treaty ever devised. The last attempt was in 2009 at the Copenhagen climate talks.
We already face significant and widespread climate change risks from the carbon pollution that has been accumulating in our atmosphere and oceans since the Industrial Revolution. Thanks largely to emissions from burning fossil fuels, the Earth is on pace to have its hottest year ever recorded, and warming of at least 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is already locked in, according to a new World Bank report. Countries agreed to limit warming to 2 degrees, a level assumed to be relatively safe. Without steep cuts in fossil fuel use, people around the world will likely face catastrophic and irreversible repercussions by 2030 or 2040. In human terms, that’s about when today’s babies finish college.
Key Dates:
Dec 1–12, 2014—Negotiations in Lima, Peru
March 31, 2015—The target date for countries to present their plans for curbing climate change.
Nov. 30 – Dec. 11, 2015—Negotiations in Paris, where countries hope to sign an historic climate treaty.
The United States, China and the European Union are responsible for about half of the world’s climate changing emissions, so their actions have a huge impact.
India, as a rapidly growing source of harmful emissions, has to make a quicker shift to low-emission energy for any climate treaty to work. The country has not announced what it’s willing to do as part of the climate accord.
The developing countries bloc (LMDC) represents half the world’s population and most of the world’s poor. It’s a powerful counter-force to the United States and other wealthy nations. The group, which includes China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and more than 20 others, has pushed the U.S. and Europe to make much larger emissions cuts and to provide substantial funding and technological assistance to its member nations.
The big-money crowd, which includes global corporations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions, will be influential because they hold sway over many economies and the global flow of cash. That makes them key players in financing the global energy transition and in funneling aid to poor countries that need help adapting to climate change.
The World Resources Institute, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and many other major environmental and social justice groups are important non-institutionalized voices and some are deeply involved in trying to shape a balanced and workable treaty.
A growing contingent of investment groups, foundations and major corporations, all of them with substantial funds at their disposal, is pushing for unequivocal action on climate change and making the argument that climate action is an opportunity not economic punishment.
For years, a split between rich and poor nations dimmed hopes at UN climate talks. Broadly put: Poorer countries want wealthier ones to promise deeper cuts in carbon emissions, and they want sufficient cash to kick start climate action they can’t afford. At Lima, it’s the same story. Here are the big issues countries must solve:
What’s a fair way to divide the costs and investments needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions and help countries adapt to climate change? Emission reductions and climate aid contributions are meant to be based on relative responsibility for climate change—but views differ on how to translate a “fair share” approach into concrete pledges from individual countries. There’s also ongoing tension over whether the treaty should increase its focus on adaptation, possibly by including pledges of financial and technological aid to help nations adapt to climate change effects that can’t be avoided.
How should island and poorer nations be compensated for the devastation they are already experiencing from climate change caused by other nations? The Philippines and many others want such “loss and damage” funds to be provided for in the treaty, while the U.S. and others have objected to that.
Should the climate treaty commitments be binding or voluntary? The United States, for example, wants the pact to be non-binding, while the Europe Union and developing countries want an enforceable treaty.
Should the world put a price on carbon through an international carbon-trading system to create a stronger incentive to shift away from fossil fuels.
The talks gained momentum after the United States, China and the European Union—all major polluters —made encouraging emission-reduction pledges ahead of the Lima talks. Some saw the fact that the U.S. and China announced their actions together as a sign that the two countries would not end up in a face-off during negotiations.
Others also found hope in the almost $10 billion in initial pledges for the Green Climate Fund, considered a critical factor in convincing developing nations to offer ambitious emission limits.
India could render the treaty ineffective if it opts to make an uninspired pledge toward limiting carbon emissions, or if it continues its aggressive build-out of new coal-fired power plants.
Countries rich in fossil fuels—Australia, OPEC nations, Russia and Canada—could block any effort that would reduce demand for their oil, gas and coal.
Least-developed nations or the Like-Minded Developing Countries could lose faith in the treaty talks, especially if they believe their needs and views are being given short shrift by developed nations, or if they think wealthy nations are not making commitments commensurate with their role in causing climate change. If that happens, the Lima conference could end with major issues unresolved, putting a Paris accord in jeopardy.
Fast for the Climate—A global demonstration on the first day of every month where people refuse to eat as a show of solidarity for people affected by climate change. On Dec. 1, the first day of climate talks in Lima, it was declared the world’s largest fast for the climate. Pacific Islanders—who face widespread destruction from rising seas—were heavily represented, with most residents of tiny Tuvalu participating, organizers said. Dec. 1 also marked the beginning of a tag-team fast, where climate leaders around the world take turns fasting for a day until the Paris talks next December.
Fossil of the Day—This shaming award from Climate Action Network International, first presented at climate talks in 1999, is bestowed on countries deemed to have done their “best” to block progress during negotiations. In Lima so far, the award has thus far been given to Australia, Austria, Belgium and Ireland for not contributing to the Green Climate Fund to help poorer nations; to Japan, for using climate funds to build coal plants in developing countries; to Switzerland for opposing legally binding finance commitments and warning that the issue could derail the treaty; to Australia, for opposing separate compensation for climate-related loss and damage (from extra-fierce typhoons, for example).
People’s Summit on Climate Change—A parallel event from Dec. 1-12 to remind negotiators that a global climate accord must respect the rights and wishes of citizens and social organizations. It’s a forum focused on climate justice, deforestation, social movements, farming, climate finance and other topics.
Light for Lima prayer vigil—A global, multi-faith prayer vigil illuminated by solar lamps to remind negotiators that the people are watching and praying for action on climate change. Digital vigil began Dec. 1, worldwide.
People’s March—A Dec. 10 protest march organized by the activist group Avaaz through the streets of Lima for “International Climatic Justice and Defense of Life Day.” The day is also International Human Rights Day.
Source: Elizabeth Douglass, Inside Climate News, Dec 6, 2014
Governments from Around the World Meeting in Lima, Peru to Lay Foundation for Addressing Climate Change, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Sends U.S. EPA Letter Opposing Climate Change Regulations
Building on the groundswell of worldwide climate action, and in preparation for concluding its Framework Convention of Climate Change in Paris in 2015, the United Nations and its participating governments from around the world have begun meeting 1 December, 2014 in Lima, Peru, and scheduled to close on 12 December, 2014, to lay the foundation for an effective new, universal climate change agreement in Paris in 2015 while also raising immediate ambition to act on climate change in advance of the agreement coming into effect in 2020.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has this year warned against rising sea levels, storms and droughts as a result of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions, and highlighted the many opportunities of taking climate action.
Last week, the UN Environment Programme underscored the need for global emissions to peak within the decade and then to rapidly decline so that the world can reach climate neutrality – also termed zero net emissions – in the second half of the century.
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Convention said:
“Never before have the risks of climate change been so obvious and the impacts so visible. Never before have we seen such a desire at all levels of society to take climate action. Never before has society had all the smart policy and technology resources to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience. All of this means we can be confident we will have a productive meeting in Lima, which will lead to an effective outcome in Paris next year.”
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker submitted comments this week in opposition of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, which proposes increased regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emission from Wisconsin’s power plants in Wisconsin. Walker’s letter claims that the proposed regulations would have a detrimental effect on Wisconsin’s manufacturing-based economy, as well as household ratepayers.
Walker says the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin have spent months reviewing the rule and seeking input from those who would be affected since its proposal in June of this year.
Governor Walker has asked the EPA to reconsider the rule based on the impact the rule will have on the cost and reliability of electricity, not only to Wisconsin’s manufacturing sector and the 455,000 people it employs, but on every ratepayer in the state and the nation.
In Lima, governments meeting under the “Ad Hoc Work Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” (ADP) need to define the scope and the type of contributions they will provide to the Paris agreement, along with clarity on how finance, technology and capacity building will be handled.
Countries will put forward what they plan to contribute to the 2015 agreement in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) by the first quarter of 2015, well in advance of the Paris conference in December of next year.
The Lima conference needs to provide final clarity on what the INDCs need to contain, including for developing countries who are likely to have a range of options from, for example, sector-wide emission curbs to energy intensity goals.
Ms. Figueres welcomed the leadership of the EU, the US and China, who have publically announced their post-2020 climate targets and visions.
“It is hugely encouraging that well ahead of next year’s first quarter deadline, countries have already been outlining what they intend to contribute to the Paris agreement. This is also a clear sign that countries are determined to find common ground and maximize the potential of international cooperation,” she said.
“Countries are working hard to increase emission reductions before 2020, when the Paris agreement is set to enter into effect. Pathways on how to accomplish this will also be a key issue before nations in Lima,” she added.
Governments need to work towards streamlining elements of a draft agreement for Paris 2015 and explore common ground on unresolved issues in order to achieve a balanced, well-structured, coherent draft for the next round of work on the text in February next year.
In addition to progress made to date towards a Paris agreement, the political will of countries to provide climate finance is increasingly coming to the fore.
At a recent pledging conference held in Berlin, Germany, countries made pledges towards the initial capitalization of the Green Climate Fund totaling nearly $ 9.3 billion USD. Subsequent pledges took this figure to $ 9.6 billion, so that the $ 10 billion milestone is within reach.
“This shows that countries are determined to build trust and to provide the finance that developing countries need to move forward towards decarbonizing their economies and building resilience”, Ms. Figueres said.
In the course of the 2014, governments have been exploring how to raise immediate climate ambition in areas with the greatest potential to curb emissions, ranging from renewable energy to cities.
As part of the “Lima Action Agenda”, countries will decide how to maintain and accelerate cooperation on climate change by all actors, including those flowing from the Climate Summit in September, where many climate action pledges were made.
“We have seen an amazing groundswell of momentum building this year. One of the main deliverables of the Lima conference will be ways to build on this momentum and further mobilize action across all levels of society. Society-wide action in concert with government contributions to the Paris agreement are crucial to meet the agreed goal of limiting global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius, and to safeguard this and future generations,” Ms. Figueres said.
As climate change impacts worsen and impact the poor and most vulnerable, governments urgently need to scale up adaptation to climate change. The conference needs to agree on how National Adaptation Plans of developing countries will be funded and turned into reality on the ground. Countries will also work to agree a work program for the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, and elect the members of its Executive Committee.
Governments will work to scale up and coordinate the delivery of climate finance and of the various existing funds. A focus will be on identifying ways to accelerate finance for adaptation to climate change. Governments will also recognize the initial capitalization of the GCF, which is expected to reach USD $ 10 billion by the close of the Lima conference.
Countries meeting in Lima will further work to provide support to avoid deforestation. Several developing countries are expected to submit information which would make it possible for them to obtain funding for forest protection.
Governments meeting in Lima are expected to clarify the role of carbon markets in the 2015 global agreement and set a work program for next year to design and develop operations for implementing new market mechanisms.
As part of the efforts by countries to accelerate pre-2020 climate action, the secretariat is organizing a fair 5, 8 and 9 December in Lima to showcase how action is being scaled up and how many countries and non-state actors are taking action and setting an example.
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.]
All Things Environmental 
Recent Comments