Author Archives: DorothyWbb

Companies don’t want Trump’s ‘business-friendly’ methane rollbacks

The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans late last week to eliminate an Obama-era rule that required oil and gas companies to monitor and control the release of the potent greenhouse gas methane during their operations.

The proposed standards would no longer require new natural gas wells, pipelines, and storage facilities to detect and limit leaking methane, the primary component of natural gas which packs at least 25 times the atmosphere-warming power of carbon dioxide.

A number of parties have spoken out against the regulatory change, including Democratic politicians, public health experts, environmental activists, and of course, scientists. But perhaps the most surprising opponents are those it ostensibly benefits: major oil and gas companies like BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. It seems counterintuitive for big businesses to oppose regulatory cuts, especially since Trump has touted his rollbacks as business-friendly. Why would large oil companies would actually want to be regulated?

There are two main reasons. The first has to do with public relations. Many fossil fuel companies are trying to revamp their image as the public learns about how much and how early the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change (spoiler: a lot, and the 1970s, respectively). Part of their PR push is positioning themselves as part of the solution, by pushing natural gas as a “cleaner” fossil fuel that can be used alongside alternatives like wind and solar.

Gretchen Watkins, president of Shell’s U.S. division, which has fracking and refining operations in more than 70 countries, has said that methane leaks are “a big part of the climate problem, and frankly we can do more.” A study last year estimated that 13 million metric tons of natural gas is lost through leaks each year, about 2 percent of all natural gas produced in the U.S. On Thursday, Watkins announced Shell’s plans to reduce methane leaks from its own global operations to less than 0.2 percent by 2025. And Shell isn’t the only fossil fuel company going full-steam ahead with the “we’re part of the solution” message. More than 60 companies have already pledged to curb methane emissions independent of government regulations.

The second reason the biggest oil and gas firms oppose the rollback has to do with competition among oil and gas companies. Multinational companies like BP and Shell could easily afford to comply with the Obama-era methane rule. (The EPA has said the regulatory rollback will save the oil and natural gas industry $17 million to $19 million per year, a drop in the oil barrel for a $388 billion company like Shell.) The regulation basically just forced big companies to capture natural gas more efficiently, which is good for their bottom lines. But softening the methane rule will actually help smaller oil and gas companies, which have smaller profit margins and can’t as easily comply with regulations. So, from the perspective of fossil fuel behemoths, cutting the methane rule gives a leg up to the little guys.

This isn’t the first time President Trump’s “pro-business” plans have met a tepid response from the industry he was trying to boost. Some electric utility companies have opposed weakening Obama-era limits on toxic mercury pollution — many have already spent billions to comply with the Obama-era rule, so eliminating it does little to help them now. And automakers have continued to balk at the administration’s plans to roll back fuel efficiency standards. With California maintaining higher standards, automakers are caught in the middle and are increasingly siding with the Golden State (as is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), for the simple reason that they don’t want to produce different cars for different states. Just last week, the President furiously tweeted that Henry Ford was “‘rolling over’ at the weakness of current car company executives.”

Though the auto industry is protesting the regulation changes for different reasons from the oil industry, both are related to the fact that the Trump administration is woefully behind the times. The established regulations, along with consumers who are increasingly concerned about the climate, have set the market on a different path. New technologies are being implemented, and time and money have been invested in products that will meet new green demand. As a result, many fossil fuel, car, and energy companies would rather stick to the old plan than accept a regulatory gift from the Trump administration that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Link:  

Companies don’t want Trump’s ‘business-friendly’ methane rollbacks

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Companies don’t want Trump’s ‘business-friendly’ methane rollbacks

Economies of Scale: Smart Ideas to Fight Fish Fraud

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When you buy fish from the grocery store, it’s not always clear exactly what you’re getting. The industry is fragmented and murky, plagued by seafood fraud—when fishermen or processors take cheaper, lower quality fish and disguise or mislabel it to try and make more money. Don’t count on regulators to catch this deception. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office took a hard look at the three agencies responsible for detecting seafood fraud, and concluded they were failing to “effectively collaborate with each other”—putting consumers’ wallets and health at risk.

Monica Jain, the founder and executive director of Manta Consulting Inc.—and also our guest on this week’s episode of Bite—believes innovative businesses may hold the key to solving some of the industry’s woes. Drawing on a background in marine biology and decades of experience in environmental consulting, in 2013 Jain founded the Fish 2.0 conference, which pairs smart seafood start-ups with investors looking to make an impact.

At Fish 2.0 2015, held at Stanford in November, entrepreneurs from 37 companies pitched everything from portable algae farms to skateboards made from reclaimed nylon fishing nets to a room of tony impresarios.

“Take out your duct tape, paper clips, tools,” urged Jain in her opening speech. “Think like this guy!” she exclaimed, as the screen behind her flashed to a cheesy poster for MacGyver, the ’90s television show about the secret agent whose name has become synonymous with resourcefulness in any situation. “If we all do it, I think we can change the future of the oceans.”

Several of the companies that pitched at Fish 2.0 focused on making seafood more transparent and safer to eat. Here are a few that just might have landed the next big idea:

Better tracking: Vessel tracking systems are little boxes placed on boats that work with GPS and satellite systems to follow where fish is being caught. Some new versions have cameras that capture footage, says Jain, helping to show whether the boat is complying with quotas, using the right gear, and throwing bycatch—sea creatures caught accidentally—back into the ocean. Pelagic Data Systems makes a solar-powered box that sends data via cellular networks, marketed to small-scale fishermen who can’t necessarily afford fancy new technology. The company hopes to make it easier for fishermen to gather and pass along information about what they catch.
Snazzier transparency tools: TRUFish hopes to create “fraud-free” fish. The company’s founder, Roxanne Nanninga, teamed up with a lab at Duke University to use DNA-sequencing to verify the true genetics of any type of fish, “fresh or frozen,” no matter what’s on the label.
Thoughtful brands: Let’s be honest—not many of us know how to distinguish tilapia from cod or halibut after it’s been skinned, fileted, and frozen. So it can be tricky to know when we’re the victims of seafood fraud. Several seafood brands now provide customers with detailed information about a fish filet’s source. California-based Salty Girl Seafood (deemed the early stage business with the “strongest market potential” at last year’s Fish 2.0 competition) sells pre-marinated filets that arrive in packaging displaying the species of fish, where it was caught, and a code customers can enter online to view more details about what they’re eating.
Farmed fish redemption: Love the Wild, based in landlocked Colorado, promotes traceable farmed fish, which arrives with a sauce so you can quickly whip up a dinner of “Red Trout with Salsa Verde” or “Catfish with Cajun Creme.” Though fish farming historically has a bad rap—mostly based on mistakes made by massive unregulated fish farms in Asia—aquaculture is undergoing something of a renaissance in the United States. Fish farmers control every step of the growing process, which makes it easier for interested farmers to raise food in an environmentally friendly fashion. Says Jain: “People want their systems to be less wasteful and polluting because those are not just better for the environment—they’re more profitable. It creates more production risk to do it unsustainably.”

Bite is Mother Jones‘ new food politics podcast. Listen to all of our episodes here, or by subscribing in iTunes, Stitcher, or via RSS.

More:  

Economies of Scale: Smart Ideas to Fight Fish Fraud

Posted in alo, aquaculture, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Safer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Economies of Scale: Smart Ideas to Fight Fish Fraud

New shipping channel will carry natural gas through the Arctic

A gassy, icy concoction

New shipping channel will carry natural gas through the Arctic

Shutterstock

Most people think the thinning of the sea ice at the top of the world is a bad thing. But not shipping and fossil fuel interests.

Shipping companies this week announced that they would use icebreakers to carve a new Arctic shipping route to help them deliver natural gas from a processing plant in western Siberia to customers in Japan and China. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Once virtually impassable, the Arctic Ocean is now attracting interest as a shipping route because global warming has reduced the ice cover within the Arctic Circle. More ships have been plying the northern route between Europe and Asia, which is roughly 40% shorter than the conventional path through the Suez Canal.

Last year, 71 ships crossed the Arctic Ocean between Europe and Asia, compared with four in 2010, according to Japan’s transportation ministry.

Mitsui O.S.K. characterized its planned route as the first regular service linking Europe and Asia via the Arctic, although it will operate the Arctic route only during the warmer months of the year.

“The shorter distance would be good for buyers, by cutting shipping costs and reducing other risks,” said Yu Nagatomi, an economist at Tokyo’s Institute of Energy Economics.

A truly less risky approach, of course, would be leaving the fossil fuels in the ground and off the ocean’s surface. But, hey, $.


Source
Shipping Firms to Add Arctic LNG Route, The Wall Street Journal

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Read this article – 

New shipping channel will carry natural gas through the Arctic

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New shipping channel will carry natural gas through the Arctic