Tag Archives: shell

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

green4us

The city of Richmond is home to a big fight over Big Oil. Heather Smith/Grist In old films about Richmond, Calif., MacDonald Avenue is a bustling pedestrian corridor. During the peak of the World War II shipbuilding boom at the docks, businesses stayed open 24 hours a day, so that they could sell groceries to people on the late shift. That was then. On a Sunday afternoon, MacDonald Avenue is a run-down looking strip of fast-food restaurants, taquerias, and four lanes of fast-moving car traffic. Also, today: one brass band. The band is the brainchild of the Richmond Progressive Association (RPA) – an eclectic group of community organizers who have, over the last nine years, managed to gain significant power in local politics. In that time, Richmond, which used to be the kind of scruffy industrial town that no one who didn’t live there had heard of, became a poster child for environmental justice. The RPA has showed a particular interest in the local Chevron refinery, which has a history both of dubious safety practices and of dabbling in local politics in a way that seems to work out to its own frequent advantage. Much of the last eight years have been a cat-and-mouse game between the currently RPA-dominated city council and other, Chevron-backed political movers and shakers. The city councilors pressured Chevron into installing equipment that reduced emissions from the refinery. They tried to rewrite the city’s business tax structure so that Chevron paid a higher rate. When that didn’t work, they hired an independent firm to audit Chevron’s utility tax payments to the city, which turned out to be so low that Chevron settled with the city for $28 million. Now that might all be coming to an end. In the last two mayoral elections – in 2006 and 2010 – RPA member and Green Party candidate Gayle McLaughlin won, in part because third-party candidates entered the race and split the vote. That’s not happening this time. What is happening is that Chevron, which put $1.2 million into defeating the RPA and electing its own candidates in 2010, has doubled down and is spending $3 million on the race this year. Read the rest at Grist.

Originally from: 

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Related Posts

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?
How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Business Briefing | Company News: Chevron Earnings Sag on Poor Refining Results
Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions
Big Greens Are Spending Big Green In 2014 Midterms

Share this:






Visit source: 

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, Monterey, ONA, Oster, oven, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Underground water reservoir with 3X as much water as Earth’s oceans found 700km deep in Earth’s crust

And this is just under the United States. There could be even more water trapped deep underground elsewhere on the planet. See the original article here –  Underground water reservoir with 3X as much water as Earth’s oceans found 700km deep in Earth’s crust ; ;Related ArticlesWhy David Brat is Completely Wrong About Climate ScienceNo. 1 pesticide killing honeybeesHurricane Cristina Just Set A Scary Record ;

Originally from:

Underground water reservoir with 3X as much water as Earth’s oceans found 700km deep in Earth’s crust

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LG, Monterey, ONA, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Underground water reservoir with 3X as much water as Earth’s oceans found 700km deep in Earth’s crust

This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Why Obama’s new climate rules aren’t as tough as they seem. The White House/Youtube Just like that, we’re already halfway to our new goal of reducing global warming pollution from power plants. On Monday morning, President Obama announced a new target for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants: a 30 percent reduction by 2030. The action isas significant as (and possibly greater than) Obama’s previous steps to significantly upgrade fuel efficiency from cars and trucks, and may help deliver a fatal blow to the coal industry. But by choosing a baseline year of 2005 for the target 30 percent reduction, the administration lets industry off relatively easy. As of 2011, the United States had already achieved a 9 percent reduction in economy-wide CO2 emissions since 2005, thanks in large part to the boom in natural gas. Carbon from power plants is down 16 percent, according to the draft EPA rule text. States will get to factor in those gains to their 2030 targets. What’s more, much of the coal that would have been burned domestically since then is just getting shipped overseas. U.S. coal exports have nearly tripled since 2006, adding to the heat-trapping pollution that accelerates global warming, even though domestic numbers show a decline. Read the rest at Slate. Continued: This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight Related ArticlesLive Coverage: Obama Takes His Boldest Step Ever To Fight Climate ChangeHere’s Why an Obama Plan to Regulate Carbon Could WorkDot Earth Blog: Tracking Obama’s Climate Rules for Power Plants

See original article:

This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Is Oil Money Turning the NRA Against Hunters?

Two new reports examine how America’s “number-one hunter’s organization” takes oil money and lobbies for anti-conservationist policies most hunters oppose. Eduard Vulcan/Thinkstock Last week, as the National Rifle Association geared up for its annual meeting in Indianapolis, a spokesman summed up the group’s base. “Everyone thinks our strength comes from our money. It doesn’t,” Andrew Arulanandam told the Indianapolis Star. “Our strength is truly in our membership. We have a savvy and loyal voting bloc.” The NRA regularly cites its devoted 4-5 million members as evidence of its clout and relevance. Yet while the gun lobby publicly extols its grassroots supporters, it has also been overlooking their interests while catering to those of the oil and gas industry. The NRA calls itself ”the number-one hunter’s organization in America.” But two new reports published by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Gun Truth Project and Corporate Accountability International show that, following contributions from oil and gas companies, the NRA lent its support to legislation that would open up more federal public lands to fossil-fuel extraction, compromising the wilderness that many hunters value. In 2012, six oil and gas companies contributed a total of between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the NRA, according to CAP. (The companies are Clayton Williams Energy, J.L. Davis Gas Consulting, Kamps Propane, Barrett Brothers Oil and Gas, Saulsbury Energy Services, and KS Industries.) Read the rest at Mother Jones. View article:  Is Oil Money Turning the NRA Against Hunters? ; ;Related ArticlesNo, New York Times, Keystone XL Is Not A “Rounding Error”Germany’s Key to Clean Energy Is…This Coal Mine?Watch Live: Darren Aronofsky Discusses “Noah” and Climate Change ;

Link to original:  

Is Oil Money Turning the NRA Against Hunters?

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Oil Money Turning the NRA Against Hunters?

Another Firm That Evaluated Keystone For State Department Had Ties To TransCanada

ICF International argued that its work with the pipeline company didn’t pose an organizational conflict of interest. Construction of the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. Jim West/ZUMA The contractor that evaluated greenhouse gas emissions for the State Department’s Keystone XL report is the latest company to come under fire for its ties to TransCanada, the prospective builder of the controversial pipeline. A conflict-of-interest statement from the consulting firm ICF International, submitted to the State Department in 2012, reveals that the company had done other work for TransCanada. ICF International analyzed greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil, the kind that would flow through the pipeline, for the State Department’s supplemental draft environmental impact statement, released in March 2013. Its website states that the firm was hired to compare life-cycle emissions associated with oil derived from Canada’s tar sands to those associated with oil from conventional crude. Read the rest at The Huffington Post See original article here:  Another Firm That Evaluated Keystone For State Department Had Ties To TransCanada ; ;Related ArticlesAustralian Surfers Told To Expect Fewer Large WavesDirty Money: From Rockefeller to KochCan This Coal Plant Save the Climate? ;

View article – 

Another Firm That Evaluated Keystone For State Department Had Ties To TransCanada

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another Firm That Evaluated Keystone For State Department Had Ties To TransCanada

Louisiana’s Coastline Is Disappearing Too Quickly for Mappers to Keep Up

Climate change and development are accelerating coastal erosion. The area south of the town of Buras, Louisiana, in 1990 (left) and today (right). NOAA has retired the names English Bay, Bay Jacquin, and Scofield Bay, acknowledging the vast water that now separates Buras from the barrier along Pelican Island (NOAA Chart 11358) Twenty-five years ago, miles of marshy land and grasses separated the small fishing outpost of Buras, Louisiana, from the Gulf of Mexico. But years of erosion – along with the one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita – have washed away much of that barrier. Today, the islands, inlets, and bays that once defined the coastline of Plaquemines Parish have begun to melt together. Like all coasts, the land around the Mississippi River is constantly evolving. In past centuries, that process was slowed by the annual flooding of the River’s vast delta, which brought new sediment to replace what was lost. But climate change, coupled with better engineering (which brought effective channeling and stronger levees), have turned this coastline into one of the most rapidly eroding areas of the U.S. In the area around Buras, gone are the formerly distinct waterways of English Bay, Bay Jacquin, and Scofield Bay, leaving a vast expanse of water between the mainland and the barrier islands. Read the rest at Atlantic Cities. From:  Louisiana’s Coastline Is Disappearing Too Quickly for Mappers to Keep Up ; ;Related ArticlesHere Are 5 Infuriating Examples of Facts Making People DumberA World of Water, Seen From SpaceCitizen Scientists: Now You Can Link the UK Winter Deluge To Climate Change ;

Visit link:  

Louisiana’s Coastline Is Disappearing Too Quickly for Mappers to Keep Up

Posted in alo, Citadel, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Louisiana’s Coastline Is Disappearing Too Quickly for Mappers to Keep Up

UN Climate Chief Calls for Tripling of Clean Energy Investment

green4us

Christiana Figueres says $1 trillion a year is required for the transformation needed to stay within 2C of warming. Video produced by Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk. The United Nations climate chief has urged global financial institutions to triple their investments in clean energy to reach the $1 trillion a year mark that would help avert a climate catastrophe. In an interview with the Guardian, the UN’s Christiana Figueres urged institutions to begin building the foundations of a clean energy economy by scaling up their investments. Global investment in clean technologies is running at about $300bn a year – but that is nowhere where it needs to be, Figueres said. “From where we are to where we need to be, we need to triple, and we need to do that – over the next five to 10 years would be best – but certainly by 2030,” she said. The International Energy Agency said four years ago it would take $1tn a year in new infrastructure projects by 2030 to make the shift from acoal- and oil-based economy to the cleaner fuels and technologies that would help keep warming below the dangerous threshold of 2C. But investment has lagged far behind. “What we need to have invested in the energy sector and in the green infrastructure in order to make the transformation that we need in order to stay within 2C is one trillion dollars a year and we are way, way behind that,” Figueres said. Figueres and leading Wall Street figures will urge global investors to step up their clean energy investments at a meeting at the UN on Wednesday organised by the Ceres investment network. The biggest investors – pension funds, insurance companies, foundations and investment managers – control about $76tn in assets, according to OECD figures. But by Figueres’s estimate, those institutional investors were committing less than 2% of the funds under their control to clean energy infrastructure – compared to 10% or 15% that was still going into coal and oil. “Last year, we had $300bn, and in the same year we had double that amount invested in exploration and mining in fossil fuels. So you can see that the ratio is not where it needs to be. We need to be at the opposite ratio.” The UN climate official said she hoped to make her case by showing the opportunities in clean tech investment – but also the financial risks of sticking with coal and oil. The UN’s climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said for the first time in its blockbuster climate report last September that there was a finite amount of carbon that could be burnt to stay within 2C warming. About half of that carbon budget is already spent – which means much of the remaining coal and oil can not be burned without crossing into dangerous warming. “There is no doubt that most of the fossil fuel reserves we have world-wide will have to stay in the ground” to avoid warming beyond 2C, Figueres said. “Two-thirds of the fossil fuels we have will have to stay in the ground.” She argued those realities would eventually erode the value of oil and coal holdings. Climate experts have already taken to referring to such carbon stores as “stranded assets”. “There is study after study coming out saying beware we are invested in assets that are already and will soon be losing value,” she said. Diplomats hope this week’s investor summit will energise efforts to reach a global emissions-cutting deal in 2015. The gathering is the first of a number of big climate-themed gatherings set for 2014, culminating with an invitation to world leaders by the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to a summit in September to try to get the outlines of that deal in place. In Washington, meanwhile, Barack Obama is expected to finalise new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants – a critical step if the US is to reach its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020. But global investment is still not keeping place. Bloomberg New Energy Finance put global investment in clean technology at just $281bn in 2012 – and the figures for 2013, due for release at the investor summit on Wednesday, are expected to fall even lower. That would mean a quadrupling of clean tech investment – instead of the tripling in investment that Figueres estimates. “Cost competitive renewable technologies and attractive investment opportunities exist right now, but we’re still not seeing clean energy deployment at the scale we need to put a dent in climate change,” said Mindy Lubber, the president of Ceres, which organised this week’s summit. “We need to find a way to get more institutional investor capital into this space.”

Originally posted here – 

UN Climate Chief Calls for Tripling of Clean Energy Investment

Related Posts

CHART: How Climate Change and Your Wine Habit Threaten Endangered Pandas
Cutting Carbon Dioxide Isn’t Enough
The Worst Way to Measure Energy Efficiency
How a Canadian Town is Teaching Polar Bears to Fear Humans
Al Gore says Obama Must Veto ‘Atrocity’ of Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

Share this:

See the original article here:

UN Climate Chief Calls for Tripling of Clean Energy Investment

Posted in ATTRA, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UN Climate Chief Calls for Tripling of Clean Energy Investment

Dear Donald Trump: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

green4us

Weather isn’t climate, people. A Bostonian trudges by Government Center as Winter Storm Hercules’s snows begin. Nicolaus Czarnecki/METRO US/ZUMA An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, is about to blanket the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the US, and in Winnipeg, temperatures on December 31 were as cold as temperatures on…Mars. So as is their seasonal wont, here come the climate skeptics. Exhibit A: This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2014 And Trump isn’t the only one. A similar reaction came from Congressman John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican: “Global warming” isn’t so warm these days. http://t.co/gOqr2RiuNJ — John Fleming (@RepFleming) January 2, 2014 And RedState.com’s Erick Erickson also piled on, blending global warming dismissal with religion: The difference between people who believe in the 2nd coming of Jesus and those who believe in global warming is that Jesus will return. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 2, 2014 Meanwhile, the front page of the Drudge Report listed a variety of cold weather news items under the heading, “Global Warming Intensifies…” Drudge Report/Climate Desk Rush Limbaugh also weighed in, noting that the Green Bay Packers may face San Francisco in subzero temperatures at home this weekend: LIMBAUGH: I would love to see Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary sitting outside on the 50 yard line of Green Bay the whole game, and then afterwards do a presentation for us all on global warming. Sit there the whole game outside. And last but not least, Fox Business‘s Stuart Varney used the Antarctic ice story to claim that “we’re looking at global cooling, forget this global warming.” All of this is all wrong in ways that have all been explained before. So just a few brief observations: Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics. Global warming is actually expected to increase “heavy precipitation in winter storms,” and for the northern hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft US National Climate Assessment. Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change! (For more, read here.) Finally, just one last thing. When it’s winter on Earth, it’s also summer on Earth…somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It’s blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures, in some regions, set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days.

Originally posted here:

Dear Donald Trump: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Related Posts

Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces
Behind the Scenes, Kerry Makes a Pact on Climate a Priority
Kerry Quietly Makes Priority of Climate Pact
The Arctic Ice “Death Spiral”
Antarctic Sea Ice Increase is Because of Weather, Not Climate

Share this:

More here:  

Dear Donald Trump: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dear Donald Trump: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Mark Ruffalo Wants You to Imagine a 100 Percent Clean Energy Future

green4us

The celebrity activist isn’t just against fracking; he wants to turn the conversation to green solutions. Mark Ruffalo at a New York City anti-fracking demonstration in 2010. Bryan Smith/ZUMA For Mark Ruffalo, environmental activism started out with something to oppose, to be against: Fracking. It all began when the actor, perhaps best known for his role as Bruce Banner (The Hulk) in Marvel’s The Avengers, was raising his three small children in the town of Callicoon, in upstate New York. At that time the Marcellus Shale fracking boom was coming on strong and was poised to expand into New York, even as the area also saw a series of staggering floods, each one seemingly more unprecedented than the last. “That was alarming,” remembers Ruffalo on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast (stream below). “Not only alarming to me, but also alarming to all the farmers who used to make fun of me for talking about climate change and global warming.” In response, Ruffalo launched Water Defense, a nonprofit that takes on fracking and extreme or unconventional energy extraction in general (from mountaintop removal mining to deep sea drilling), and does so with a focus on grassroots activism. In the process, Ruffalo has become quite the visible spokesman: He even unleashed some Hulk-style anger toward the energy industry on the Colbert Report. But if you think Ruffalo is just another celeb with an anti-corporate tilt, you’re missing the real story. His true passion is promoting a clean energy solution to our climate and water problems, and demonstrating how feasible it is. Today. Like, now. Mark Ruffalo The Toronto Star/ZUMA “For the first time in human history, we’re actually at a place, technologically speaking, where we can make this transition,” explains Ruffalo. “And the amount of money, and resources, that we pour into this fossil fuel infrastructure, which has been an appendage to us, like a third leg that we’re dragging around, will be freed up, and no longer will we be worrying about having to extract energy. We’ll be just harvesting what’s already pouring on us every single day.” Ruffalo’s shift toward clean energy advocacy was a natural evolution from the fracking fight. “What I started to feel was, you can’t credibly say ‘no’ to something unless you can come up with an alternative that is equal to or better than what is being offered,” he says. And for that alternative, he naturally turned to scientists. Ruffalo had come across research by Mark Jacobson, a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford, on the potential for the US to move to 100 percent renewable energy in the coming decades. “So I went to him and I said, ‘Hey Mark, could you make a plan for New York state based on this broad concept that the United States could actually do it, and do it in my lifetime hopefully, and definitely in my kids’ lifetime?” Jacobson initially demurred, saying he didn’t have time to write down much more than a few paragraphs. But he didn’t hold out for long. “The next day in my email inbox I had 40 pages of what is now a feasibility study on moving New York state from fossil fuels to renewable energy by 2030,” laughs Ruffalo. That study is here; it describes a state drawing 50 percent of its power from wind (10 percent onshore and 40 percent offshore), 38 percent from various forms of solar power, and the remainder from sources like geothermal and hydroelectric power—all while saving money, producing more jobs, and even saving lives (thanks to cleaner air). Notably, the New York state plan doesn’t just eliminate oil and coal; it also avoids nuclear power and natural gas. Here’s a figure from Jacobson’s paper, showing how much of New York’s total area would have to be devoted to clean energy projects to pull it off: Area required to implement a 100 percent clean energy plan for New York based on wind, water, and solar (“WWS”). Mark Jacobson et al, Energy Policy. To be sure, critics have questioned the feasibility of such a swift and absolute energy transformation. But Ruffalo isn’t deterred; the New York state study was just the beginning. “In the next few months, we will be dropping 50 plans for 50 states,” he says. The draft plans for California and Washington are already available. Meanwhile, Jacobson, Ruffalo, banker Marco Krapels, and documentary filmmaker Josh Fox have formed a new organization called the Solutions Project, which declares that “it’s not enough to simply be against something”; rather, the organization wants to use “science + business + culture to accelerate the transition to 100% renewable energy.” So is all of this just crazy and unrealistic? Consider some facts about the impressive growth of solar energy of late: A solar energy system is now installed every four minutes in the US, according to GTM Research. By 2016, that’s projected to be down to 83 seconds. According to the Solar Energy Industry Organization, the price of a solar panel has declined 60 percent just since 2011. Walmart is now producing more solar power at its stores than 38 US states. But the most impressive statistics about solar power involve its abundant supply and stunning potential. According to one estimate, the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface in one and half hours exceeds the entire world energy consumption in the year 2001. Such are the facts, but grasping what they really mean is another matter. And to hear Ruffalo talk about clean energy is to encounter a degree of optimism that is as infectious as it is rare. “We’re not getting the messaging about how wonderful a world we’re going to be living in when we make this change,” he says. People don’t know, Ruffalo continues, “what it will look like to go outside and see no smog. What it will look like to have cars that don’t make any noise, or have any exhaust come out of them.” To help in that visualization, Ruffalo is teaming up with the filmmaker and TV personality Jason Silva to make short-subject videos about “this beautiful concept of the abundance that will be manifested to us once we move to renewable energy.” And he has partnered with Mosaic, a company that helps to crowd-fund solar projects, in a “Put Solar on It” campaign to rapidly increase the number of US solar installations in 2014 (while making money for investors along the way). Just last week on the Fox Business Network, Ruffalo could be found promoting the Mosaic project to an audience of not-exactly-lefty investors. So will Ruffalo ever act in or produce a clean energy or global warming movie? He’s “mulling it over,” he says. “An issue has got to mature to a place that that story can be told without it smacking as a polemic,” he adds. You have to hit a kind of cultural sweet spot, sort of like what happened with Ruffalo’s influential 2010 film The Kids Are All Right, about same-sex parenting. In the meantime, Ruffalo wants you to simply imagine what our energy future could be. “A spill for a solar panel,” he says, “is a sunny day.” You can stream the full Inquiring Minds interview with Mark Ruffalo here: This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by best-selling author Chris Mooney and neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas, also features a discussion of what the year 2013 meant for climate and energy. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunesorRSS. You can also follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Inquiring Minds was also recently singled out as one of the “Best of 2013″ shows on iTunes—you can learn more here.

More:  

Mark Ruffalo Wants You to Imagine a 100 Percent Clean Energy Future

Related Posts

Views Differ on Fracking’s Impact
After Sandy, Scientists Hunt for Sewage in New York City’s Harbors
Podcast: What It’s Like To Spend 55 Days in Space
Charts: The Smart Money is on Renewable Energy
Television Review: Josh Fox’s ‘Gasland Part II’ Is to Be Shown on HBO

Share this:

Read this article: 

Mark Ruffalo Wants You to Imagine a 100 Percent Clean Energy Future

Posted in alo, Anker, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mark Ruffalo Wants You to Imagine a 100 Percent Clean Energy Future

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Shutterstock

When a promising cap-and-trade bill failed in the Senate in 2010, oil and coal companies everywhere must have breathed a sigh of relief, then probably wiped the sheen from their collective brow with a spare Benjamin and got back to work.

It now looks like some of that work involved planning for a time when they would actually lose the battle over their climate sins.

In a report [PDF] released by the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 29 companies — including the five biggest oil-producers, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, and Shell (not that we’re keeping track) — report that they are using carbon pricing estimates to plan for hypothetical future regulation in the U.S. This generally means that an estimated carbon price is applied to a corporation’s big-investment projects — new drilling rigs, for example — which will likely be subject to some kind of emissions tax in ten or twenty years.

For climate hawks and economists disappointed by the failure of carbon tax schemes in the real world, this may sound hopeful: At least SOMEONE believes that carbon-pricing stands a chance, and soon, too. But it’s also just good business: With California’s fledgling cap-and trade market getting under way, and public opinion on climate change swinging back toward sanity, carbon tax is looking less and less utopian and more like a plausible business expense.

The CDP claims that the usage of internal carbon prices demonstrates the “assumption that addressing climate change will be both a business cost and a possible business opportunity.” Basically, if companies start planning now, maybe our global economy won’t go into a tailspin when we wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Plus, lots of international companies, especially ones operating in regulated Europe or Australia, are already dealing with carbon taxes in some form. Australia prices all consumer fossil fuels at about $21 per ton of carbon; for European countries it falls somewhere between $5 and $80.

ExxonMobil, king of the big five, is no stranger to the carbon debate. Despite a sordid history of funding huge anti-climate-science campaigns to widen the consensus gap between scientists and the general public, the company publicly supported a carbon tax in 2009 (while lobbying against the actual bill in Congress). In the CDP’s report, ExxonMobil had the highest reported cost — $60 per ton of carbon, by 2030 — while BP and Shell were more tentative with $40 a ton. (The U.S. government, by comparison, has set a tentative “social cost” price between $37 and $57 for 2015 [PDF].)

Even companies like Google and Disney got in on the carbon-pricing action, using auction prices from California’s cap-and-trade scheme to help set the bar. Not everyone is as committed: Walmart claimed only that their estimated price is set “flexibly,” whatever that means.

One conspicuous absence (drumroll, please): everyone’s favorite climate-denying multinational conglomerate, Koch Industries! The multibillion dollar corporation, with its history of campaigning against all things climate-science-y, has not joined the herd of oil companies in budgeting for carbon tax. The Koch-funded American Energy Alliance has spent $1.2 billion this year alone in attacking candidates who allegedly support a carbon price.

Of course, no one can guarantee that any of the companies reporting internal carbon prices aren’t engaging in other forms of shenanigans, hanky-panky, or mustache-twirling in this and other environmental areas. Xcel Energy, one of the 29 companies, was recently embroiled in an attempt to restrict access to local, renewable energy in Boulder, Colo. ExxonMobil, with all its pinkie-promises to be more sustainable, has started investing in natural gas — which is a smart move if carbon starts being taxed, but still lets them get away with plenty of other environmental shenanigans. And planning for a future carbon tax is a long way from actually supporting one. Color us cynical, but we have a hard time believing any energy company is that gung ho to undermine its business model.

“It’s climate change as a line item,” Tom Rivett-Carnac, the CDP’s North American director, told the New York Times. “They’re looking at it from a rational perspective, making a profit. It drives internal decision-making.”

I guess it’s good that someone is looking at it from a rational perspective. Maybe U.S. lawmakers will follow suit.

Amelia Urry is Grist’s intern.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Original post:  

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not