April 2013 - President Obama alone has the authority to keep the Keystone XL pipeline from crossing our border. The dictionary defines ‘keystone’ as “the central principle or part of a policy, system, etc., on which all else depends.” Obama should say no to the Keystone XL pipeline and use his rejection as a positive ‘keystone’ for building America’s clean energy future.
The 875-mile proposed pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. From there, most of the fuel would be sent abroad.
The Alberta tar sands is the third-largest proven reserve of crude oil in the world—and one of the dirtiest and most CO2-intensive concentrations of fossil fuel on the planet. Producing tar sands oil generates three times as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular crude oil production. Building the Keystone XL would be the same as putting at least five million new cars on the road!
The corrosive properties of tar sands oil increases the likelihood of pipeline leaks and spills. The Keystone XL’s sister pipeline leaked more than 12 times in its first year of operation!
A recent New York Times Editorial opposing Keystone stated, “It is the long-term consequences that Mr. Obama should focus on. Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone.”
The State Department has set a 45-day citizens’ comment period on the proposed Keystone pipeline. Please submit your comments to the State Department by April 22 and send the same message to the President.
Urge the State Department and the President to reject the Keystone pipeline and to use this opportunity to set a new direction for America’s clean energy future. Tell them why this issue is important to you.
Biogas is produced from a breakdown of animal waste in airtight containers and its main use is for cooking. It can replace wood, gas, or kerosene and reduces deforestation, which has been a huge problem in Kenya.
The Africa Biogas Partnership Programme (ABPP) has installed over 25,000 biogas digesters since 2008 in five countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Burkina Faso) and has a goal of reaching 70,000 digesters by the end of 2014; rural farmers are a main target community. The Kenya National Federation of Agriculture Producers (KENFAP) has set up the Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP), with a goal of developing the biogas sector.
So far, under KENDBIP, almost 7,000 biogas digesters have been built with a target goal of 11,000. This will avoid roughly 94,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which is not a large amount for Kenya considering the amount of deforestation that has occurred for years; however, this will pave the way for further change in the years to come.
The biogas implementation has not only been good for the environment and do not only economically benefit rural farmers. Biogas plants have allowed for women to play a role in the economy. One woman from Nairobi, Lydia Owenga is a trained installer of biogas systems who owns her own business, which has now built 15 biogas systems. The ABPP conducted a study last year which showed results that out of the five countries where the ABPP is active, Kenya has shown the highest proportion of trained women masons, which is a great social change in a society that often does not take women seriously in business.
So what is the fuss over biogas?
Not only is it environmentally friendly, especially to a country like Kenya where deforestation has been a growing issue; it is also economically friendly to rural farmers, who no longer have to worry about spending so much on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), and it has also made a social impact on women in business.
On February 17th, what is expected to be the largest environmental rally in U.S. history will take place in Washington D.C. Forward on Climate will draw tens of thousands of participants to the National Mall in hopes of pressuring President Obama to bring climate issues to the forefront of political discourse.
The presidential elections came and went with no mention of climate change, a significant setback for environmental discussions at the national level. However, in his inaugural address, Obama stated, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations”. In June of this year, a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline will be revisited. The increased frequency and intensity of severe-weather events such as Hurricane Sandy, country-wide droughts and raging wildfires in the West have emphasized the need to address CO2 emissions from existing power plants, and place our support behind renewable energy. 2013 is a crucial year for moving forward on substantial environmental policy in the United States. The goal of Forward on Climate is to hold President Obama accountable for his words, and to address these issues head-on.
Visit forwardonclimate.org for more information and to sign up if you plan to attend. If you cannot be in D.C. on the 17th, contact your member of congress to let him or her know these issues cannot be pushed back any longer, and that you want to move Forward on Climate.
• President Obama continues to use diplomacy instead of bombs for U.S. foreign policy with Iran.
• The Department of the Interior rejected a permit for a massive expansion of an open-pit coal mine close to Bryce Canyon National Park.
• The EPA finalized the first nationwide standard for mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants, cutting mercury emissions by 90%.
• The EPA approved new standards to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants - this will significantly reduce our CO2 emissions.
• The EPA approved new standards to reduce the “fine particulate matter” or “soot” in the atmosphere. These new regulations are expected to prevent thousands of premature deaths every year in the U.S.
• President Obama was re-elected. He was clearly the candidate who will do the most to protect the environment and preserve peace.
Photo by Erce Tümerk on June 4, 2009 in Yazıhan, Malatya, TR
Three numbers: 2 degrees Celsius, 565 gigatons and 2,795 gigatons. These three numbers will, according to Bill McKibben, hopefully bring home the “terrifying” new reality of the world we now live in.
The first number: 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, was one of the only useful by-products of the scandalous Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 (scandalous because international leaders, including President Obama, allowed so-called “political realism” to take the day, leaving real, binding climate commitments in the dust). It refers to the position taken by the Copenhagen Accord, that “the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius...we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius." Here, Bill McKibben provides some context:
So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target.
Though it is “far too lenient” of a target, we have to start somewhere, right? This should be especially apparent given the daunting political reality of our world, where changes take years to fully implement.
The second number: 565 gigatons is the amount of atmospheric “space” we have until we bridge the gap between the 0.8 degrees Celsius of warming we have already experienced, and the two degrees Celsius that scientists agree is the absolute maximum that humans can safely live with. However, McKibben points out that there is an extra level of urgency to this number:
...computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.
In other words, we need to start changing our ways now.
The third number: 2,795 gigatons is the amount of carbon currently stored in proven fossil fuel reserves that energy companies and petro-states will exploit in the coming years:
Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value.
This number clearly displays the disconnect between the environmental reality, and the political and economic reality of our predicament: 2,795 gigatons is five times the 565 gigaton limit. That is way beyond what is safe.
“So pure self-interest probably won't spark a transformative challenge to fossil fuel. But moral outrage just might – and that's the real meaning of this new math. It could, plausibly, give rise to a real movement,” says McKibben. And he’s not talking about some sort of vague, idealistic global movement to end the reign of fossil fuel; he’s talking about a local movement, easy to organize and implement. It starts with slowly loosening the choke-hold fossil-fuel companies and petro-states have on our economies and our lifestyles, by divesting ourselves from those who profit from pollution. I know that my school, Amherst College, has a large movement building attempting to divest the school's endowment from coal, a big step in taking control of the future that we as Amherst students want to live in. After all, if our school invests our endowment in coal, furthering environmental destruction, what world will we be able to use our Amherst degrees in?
ACTION: Ask that your pension fund, or your college’s endowment, or any investment on your behalf be divested from those who profit from pollution. Use the numbers Bill McKibben provides to make your case to those who might balk. Hammer home the terrifying new math of this new world so no one can be in doubt as to the true consequences of continued support of fossil fuels.
Buy tickets to Bill McKibben's upcoming "Do the Math" Tour
Peter Suechting is an intern at 2020 Action. He is currently a sophomore attending Amherst College where he is pursuing an Environmental Studies degree. Recently, Peter worked on a Forest Service trail crew for three months, hiking the almost 80 miles of the South Warner Wilderness of Modoc National Forest in California.
Check out this video by artist Isao Hashimoto showing every nuclear test from the Manhattan Project (Trinity test) in 1945 and a Pakistani test in 1998. Totaling 2,053 tests the video is a truly frightening spectacle, providing insight into the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose. The number of tests is at first low, but by the late 1950’s it begins to increase. By 1962, testing peaks with over a hundred blasts in one year. At the end of the video, Hashimoto runs through tests by country in order to show which countries are blowing up bombs and where.
A 53,000 tonne Leiv Eiriksson oil rig off Greenland's coast. Photograph: Steve Morgan/AP Photo/Greenpeace
On September 16 this year, Arctic sea ice fell to its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979. The previous record, set in 2007, was first broken on August 16 this year and continued to be surpassed as the melting season progressed.
This year’s melting record was different from 2007’s, however, as no unusual weather patterns contributed to the melting. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), “[in] 2007, winds and weather patterns helped melt large expanses of ice”. In response to the absence of unusual weather patterns in helping to set the new record, NSIDC Director Mark Serreze said, “It looks like spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent extreme weather patterns”.
To put this record in perspective, the average sea ice extent for the month of September was 3.61 million square kilometers, slightly more than the daily minimum record (set on September 16) of 3.41 million square kilometers, and a whopping 3.29 million square kilometers below the 1979 to 2000 average.In only three to four decades, Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by around half, a drastic and frightening decrease. In addition, the record low continued the downward trend in arctic sea ice scientists have observed over the past 33 years, which they attribute mostly to warming temperatures caused by climate change. According to the NSIDC, “[s]ince 1979...Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 13 percent per decade.” The effects of this continuing decrease in sea ice will be seen in ever-increasing global temperatures, as the summer sea ice reflects sunlight, thereby moderating global climate.
The Arctic has seen a decline in multi-year ice, or ice that sticks around for more than one year. As NSIDC scientist Walt Meier puts it, “[the Arctic ice] is becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer”. Furthermore, as the NSIDC reports, “[r]ecent data on the age of sea ice, which scientists use to estimate the thickness of the ice cover, shows that the youngest, thinnest ice, which has survived only one or two melt seasons, now makes up the large majority of the ice cover” (NSIDC).
Age of Arctic Sea Ice From '83
So, what does this mean for the Arctic’s future? Well, for one thing, with an ice-free summer, the Arctic, which holds an estimated 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, is ripe for exploitation by oil companies. Shell is an example of such exploitation. It secured a drilling permit in the Alaskan Arctic a few years back, and this summer it began drilling exploratory wells in the Arctic waters off of the Alaskan shoreline. BP as well has plans to drill in the Alaskan Arctic, and the Shtockman consortium has created a plan to exploit a gas field in the Russian Barents sea.
All is not lost, however. Shell, which began drilling exploratory wells in the Alaskan Arctic has run into numerous problems, both technical, involving equipment, and regulatory, involving permits and oil spill response plans. On Monday, October 1, Shell announced that it would be postponing drilling efforts until summer 2013, due to technical setbacks in their oil spill response equipment. Similarly, BP has suspended its efforts as well due to cost and technical problems (Reuters).
The conclusion that can be drawn from these cancellations is that exploiting oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic is just too technically difficult, cost-intensive, and ultimately, too dangerous environmentally for the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Oil companies will likely not admit to this, however, until a major environmental disaster occurs in the form of an oil spill or other catastrophe. The Obama administration isn’t doing much to help out either, giving Shell the go-ahead to drill in Arctic waters off of Alaska, though to their credit, it is under heavy regulation (Washington Post).
Concerns are being raised from a variety of sources, however. One group challenging Arctic drilling is a group of six Democrats, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), who wrote in their letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar: “Challenges with infrastructure and spill response are unprecedented in the Arctic’s remote, undeveloped region. The Arctic Ocean is characterized by hurricane-force storms, 20-foot swells, sea ice up to 25 feet thick, sub-zero temperatures and months-long darkness … In the event of an oil spill, the response may be too slow, and irreversible damage to ecosystems and species could result.” A British parliamentary committee also spoke out against the drilling, recommending that more infrastructure for oil spill clean-up be put in place before proceeding with drilling (Washington Post).
Now, if you really stop to think about it, drilling for oil in the Arctic is the most preposterous indicator of our human folly in the era of global warming. After all, the melting of the Arctic was caused in the first place by burning oil, and now oil companies and governments wish to exploit the melting to drill for more oil. I can’t make this stuff up. As the founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, said: "There's no place on Earth where we see the essential irony of our moment playing out more perfectly than in the Arctic. Our response has not been alarm, or panic, or a sense of emergency. It has been: 'Let's go up there and drill for oil'. There is no more perfect indictment of our failure to get to grips with the greatest problem we've ever faced." (Guardian).
Now, you might be asking, “what can I do about this issue?” The answer is a lot. To start out with, Greenpeace is conducting a campaign called “Save the Arctic”, that aims to declare the Arctic a global sanctuary. All you have to do is sign a petition by providing your email, name and post code. Pretty easy, right?
Also, write a personal letter to your congressional representative, detailing the risks Arctic drilling poses to the fragile Arctic ecosystem and the entire world and asking him or her to do something about it. Also consider spreading the word by emailing Greenpeace’s “Save the Arctic” link or any other report on Arctic drilling and global warming (such as this one) to your friends and family, and ask them to spread the word as well. If you can tell just one more person about the situation in the Arctic, then you have succeeded!
Peter Suechting is an intern at 2020 Action. He is currently a sophomore attending Amherst College where he is pursuing an Environmental Studies degree. Recently, Peter worked on a Forest Service trail crew for three months, hiking the almost 80 miles of the South Warner Wilderness of Modoc National Forest in California.
In spite of persistent partisan quarreling over tax legislation, an important Tax Extender bill has been approved with bipartisan support by the Senate Finance Committee to continue energy-related tax provisions that provide critical support for wind and solar power. Also included in the tax extender legislation is a tax credit for energy efficient appliances, and extension of the Energy Efficient New Homes Tax Credit (or 45L credit). 45L has been responsible for raising the proportion of new green homes from close to zero to 11 percent since 2005. ACellulosic Biofuels Producer Tax Credit is also included in the bill to encourage creation of ethanol from plant fiber typically considered waste.
A Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for green energy are also included in the tax extender legislation. They have been instrumental in enabling wind power to provide 35% of all new US energy capacity over the last four years. Iowa now derives 20% of its energy from wind. The entire country could grow to Iowa’s level by 2030, providing 500,000 jobs in wind energy (DOE estimate). We can’t let these credits lapse when wind power can guarantee the long-term stability of electricity prices, provide ‘home grown’ secure energy without increasing global warming, and create American jobs in a dynamic economic sector.
Both houses of Congress will vote on tax extender legislation. In order to help America develop clean wind, solar, and biofuel energy sources and build greener homes, ask your Senatorsto support the green provisions of The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, and your Representative to support H.R. 6031, The Wind Powering American Jobs Act of 2012.
PS. Mitt Romney favors letting wind power tax credits expire, President Obama supports their extension.
On June 15th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter, or “soot” pollution. Soot pollution is the deadliest of the common air pollutants, causing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year across the country through a variety of cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. It also contributes to haze that hangs over many of the country’s cities and most scenic parks and wilderness areas. Sources of soot pollution include power plants and diesel trucks and buses. EPA is required to update these standards periodically to reflect the latest scientific research regarding how much pollution can be in the air, with the air still safe to breathe.
If an area is found to have levels of pollution that exceed the NAAQS, they are said to be in “nonattainment” and local and state agencies are then required to develop a plan to reduce pollution levels through various pollution control measures. An overview of the proposed standard can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/fsoverview.pdf
EPA is proposing to strengthen the NAAQS for fine particulate matter pollution to between 12 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter, as compared to the existing standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter that has been in place since 1997. EPA estimates that this will save thousands of lives and result in an annual national savings of $2.3 billion to $5.9 billion in medical expenses, at a cost of only $69 million in air cleanup costs.
The public comment period for the EPA’s proposed new standards for soot pollution ends August 31st. Tell them you strongly support the new NAAQS for fine particulates of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Cleaner air will improve the environment, keep us healthier, save thousands of lives, and cut America's medical bills by billions of dollars every year.
Global warming remains the most pressing environmental issue facing our society. Scientists warn that unless we start making significant cuts in our carbon pollution, we’ll be saddling future generations with more extreme and unstable weather, heat-related deaths, rising oceans, and increased loss of plant and animal species.
Power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, yet for years they have been allowed to spew unlimited amounts of carbon into our air. On March 27, the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to fix that by proposing the first-ever federal carbon pollution standards for new power plants.
These proposed standards are a really big deal. If implemented as proposed, any new coal-fired power plant would have to have a plan to capture and sequester its carbon pollution underground—an expensive and technologically challenging process that will likely convince utilities to ditch plans for new coal plants and opt for cleaner, less polluting energy sources.
Now comes the hard part. The nation’s largest utilities and coal companies are expected to spend millions of dollars and work with their friends in Congress to try and derail these new standards. They’ll run paid TV ads, pressure members of the Obama administration, and try and confuse the public into thinking these standards aren’t needed and will wreck the economy.
Those of us who support the proposed new standards need to let the EPA hear from us by June 25th.
The EPA is holding a public comment period through June 25 to gauge how Americans feel about the proposed carbon emission standards for new power plants. Urge EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to move ahead with these standards, and ask her to take action to design improved standards for existing power plants as well. Refer to Docket ID No.EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
