White Paper - Oil Spills in Arctic Waters

This White Paper is a compilation of research on oil spills in ice-covered Arctic waters and it offers suggestions for future study. It is subtitled, "An Introduction and Inventory of Research Activities and USARC Recommendations."  The authors identify research entities in governmental, nongovernmental, industrial, and private organizations, and provide an inventory of research projects.

Given that much work is currently in progress, they provide only a snapshot in time, and an introduction to the topic. While an in-depth evaluation of the research results, a prioritization of research and development gaps, and a critical examination of the connection between research and oil spill response capability are undoubtedly important topics, they are beyond the scope of this effort.

The authors hope that their foray into this subject encourages others to address these critical topics. Finally, the US Arctic Research Commission (USARC) closes this paper with recommendations for additional research on the topic of oil spills in icecovered Arctic waters.

Click here to access the White Paper (PDF). 

© 2013, US Arctic Research Commission.

Related Articles
More Evidence that Arctic Warming is an Economic and Ecological Time Bomb
The Race to Exploit the Arctic's Resources Ignores the Costs
More Evidence of Historic Arctic Warming: Lake Sediment and Ice Cores
Why the Fate of the Arctic Should be of Concern to Us All
Video - O' Canada Stand Up for the Arctic and Oppose Climate Change
Its Official Arctic Sea Ice is at its Lowest Level in Recorded History
The Arctic's Dangerous Combination of Environmental Toxicity and Genetic Vulnerability
The Dramatic Implications of Melting Arctic Sea Ice
Melting Arctic Ice is Releasing Massive Amounts of Methane
Scientists Link Loss of Arctic Sea Ice to Anomalous Weather
Video - Arctic Warming: Risks for Methane Emissions
Russia Lining Up Investors for Arctic Drilling
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Global Warming Exposes Resources in the Arctic
Northern Ice is Melting at a Dramatic Rate
Environmental Tipping Points

Sweden is a Model of Sustainable Waste Management

Sweden has a garbage problem, but unlike the US and many other places in the world, Sweden's problem is not that there is too much trash, it is that there is too little. Thanks to Sweden's highly efficient recycling habits only four percent of the nations waste ends up in landfills.

This is in stark contrast to nations like the US where half of all waste ends up in landfills according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Americans recycled just 34 percent of their waste in 2010, and a total of 136 million tons of garbage ended up in landfills. Americans throw away nearly half of their food, costing roughly $165 billion per year, according to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In Sweden it is mandatory for households to separate recyclables from trash, and producers help handle waste management.

The nation's innovative waste-to-energy program burns garbage to generates twenty percent of their district heating, a system of distributing heat by pumping heated water into pipes through residential and commercial buildings. It also provides electricity for a quarter of a million homes.

Sweden is so effective at managing waste that it has begun importing garbage to power its waste-to-energy program. The country is now importing 800,000 tons of trash each year from other European countries like Norway which pays Sweden to take the waste.

Together, Sweden's recycling programs and their waste-to-energy system ensures minimal environmental impact from the country’s waste. However, there is still some toxic waste left behind in the ash from incinerating garbage which are then returned to Norway.

According to Catarina Ostlund, Senior Advisor for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden has the world’s best incineration plants as far as energy efficiency is concerned. Nonetheless the nation continues to explore ways to reduce its own waste even further.

“This is not a long-term solution really, because we need to be better to reuse and recycle, but in the short perspective I think it’s quite a good solution,” Ostlund concluded

Sweden is a model of waste management that other countries can learn from. Their radically efficient circle of consumption, waste management, and energy output are a model for a more sustainable future.

It appears that other countries are following Sweden's example with new waste-to-energy initiatives in Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Lithuania. Only a very small amount of trash is incinerated in the US.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
E-Waste: A New Business Opportunity
Evolving Metrics for Corporate Sustainability: Beyond Waste
Recycling In America: More Than Just A Feel Good Experience
The Growing Problem of Cell Phone Waste
Greenpeace e-Waste Investigation (Video)
The Problems and Solutions of e-Waste (Video)
US e-waste is Polluting Toxic Dumps in Ghana (Video)
The US Desire to be "Green" is Causing an e-Waste Hell China (Video)
Recycling Waste Tires
The Waste Hydrogen Utilization Project
Video: The Perils of Plastic Waste

Fossil Fuels are making the Planet Uninhabitable

We risk an unprecedented global catastrophe if we continue to burn the earth's remaining fossil fuel resources. According to research conducted by former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and co-authors, our current trajectory of fossil fuel exploitation puts us on track to create a "practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end runaway greenhouse effect."

These researchers looked at carbon from fossil fuels including tar sands and shale gas and came to the conclusion that if we extract and burn as little as one third of these reserves, we could reach carbon levels as high as 16 times the atmospheric concentrations that existed in 1950.

According to this research we are on the verge of passing irreversible tipping points from which we will not be able to recover. This view is corroborated by others who have shown that unless we reign in our emissions in the next few years it will be too late to keep temperatures below the upper limit of 2C.

The paper was published in July by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A it focuses on empirical data about correlations between temperature, sea level and CO2 going back up to 66 million years.

If we continue with business as usual we will:

1. Eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world
2. Diminish the stratospheric ozone layer
3. Make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans

Hansen blames governments for allowing fossil fuel companies to continue to extract hydrocarbons.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Now is the Time to End our Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Worldwatch Institute's State of the World 2013 Report
Air and Water in the OECD Report
Pursuing a Moratorium on New Fossil Fuel Development
European Commissioner for Climate Action Urges Development Banks to Divest from Fossil Fuels
Curbing Fossil Fuels is Essential to Climate Change Mitigation
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Video - Do the Math: The Movie
Fossil Fuel Powered Carbon Bombs
Video - Debate: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet?
The Implications of the US being a Global Leader in Fossil Fuel Production
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
Fossil Fuels are the Most Hated Industry in the US
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation
Air and Water in the OECD Report
Independence Day: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

Green Building Infographic

More Evidence that Arctic Warming is an Economic and Ecological Time Bomb

Although our understanding of the Arctic is far from complete, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests melting Arctic ice will free massive deposits of methane locked in the permafrost of the far north. This represents an unprecedented danger both economically and ecologically. The latest evidence for this ticking time bomb was presented in a report by Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope & Peter Wadhams presented in the journal Nature.

Melting Arctic ice is expected to have far reaching impacts well beyond the far north. One of the most grievous threats comes from the release of methane trapped in the permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea. The authors estimate that the cost of a massive methane release off the northern coast of Russia alone is $60 trillion. This is a startling figure when we consider that the value of the global economy in 2012 was estimated to be $70 trillion.

“As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles.”

The release of methane will rapidly accelerate the rate at which the earth is warming and therefore the rate of global flooding, ocean acidification, altered ocean and atmospheric circulation. As a corollary we can expect more extreme heat, droughts and storms and their concomitant impacts on agriculture.

The authors of the study ran many scenerios using the PAGE09 integrated assessment model which calculates the impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigation and adaptation measures.

All their statistical modeling came to the same conclusion:

“There is a steep global price tag attached to physical changes in the Arctic.”

Even in the low-emissions case, the mean net present value of global climate-change impacts is $82 trillion without the methane release (methane pulse), an extra $37 trillion, or 45 percent is added.

The researchers found that the "methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels."

It is clear that melting Arctic ice will have major implications for our oceans and our climate. The affects will be felt by all nations on earth, but some of the world's poorest nations will be hardest hit.

The full costs of climate change transcends economics and augurs an apocalyptic future that threatens civilization itself.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
The Race to Exploit the Arctic's Resources Ignores the Costs
More Evidence of Historic Arctic Warming: Lake Sediment and Ice Cores
Why the Fate of the Arctic Should be of Concern to Us All
Video - O' Canada Stand Up for the Arctic and Oppose Climate Change
Its Official Arctic Sea Ice is at its Lowest Level in Recorded History
The Arctic's Dangerous Combination of Environmental Toxicity and Genetic Vulnerability
The Dramatic Implications of Melting Arctic Sea Ice
Melting Arctic Ice is Releasing Massive Amounts of Methane
Scientists Link Loss of Arctic Sea Ice to Anomalous Weather
Video - Arctic Warming: Risks for Methane Emissions
White Paper - Oil Spills in Arctic Waters
Russia Lining Up Investors for Arctic Drilling
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Global Warming Exposes Resources in the Arctic
Northern Ice is Melting at a Dramatic Rate
Environmental Tipping Points

List of Climate Deniers in the US Congress

A 2010 study showed that 40 percent of Americans do not know that their is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. This should come as no surprise considering that the vast majority of Republican leaders eschew the science to this day. 
While the number of climate deniers are declining, the sad reality is that the lies are being kept alive by Republicans in Congress.

Here is a list of climate deniers in Congress who deny the veracity of the science of global warming. As explained in the forward to the list "Climate change is real, it's caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem."
 

Deniers in the House


Rep. Robert AderholtAL-4

"I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions."

Rep. Rodney AlexanderLA-5

Introduced H Res 974 declaring that “the impacts of climate change and proposed resolutions, tainted by the recent uncovering of climategate, are not universally accepted….”

Rep. Michele BachmannMN-6

"Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."

Rep. Lou Barletta

"You know there's arguments on both sides. I'm not convinced that there's scientific evidence that proves that. I believe there's some that can also argue the opposite," he said.

Rep. Joe BartonTX-6

“You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,” Barton said as he challenged Gore’s conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.

Rep. Dan BenishekMI-1

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, Rep. Benishek has said that climate change is “all baloney” and “just some scheme.” Pointing to his background as a general surgeon, Benishek claims he’s “a scientist” who has the expertise to know that climate change is “unproven science stuff.”

Rep. Marsha BlackburnTN-7

"Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen."

Rep. John BoehnerOH-8

"George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide."

Rep. Kevin BradyTX-8

"Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured."

Rep. Jim BridenstineOK-1

He downplayed the need for more climate research by noting that atmospheric temperatures have not risen over the last decade, and said temperatures coincide more with solar activity than with man-made factors. “Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago,” he said. “Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles.” He noted the Medieval Warm Period that happened “long before cars, power plants and the industrial revolution.” And he noted the Little Ice Age, which also happened irrespective of human activity.” Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years,” he said.

Rep. Mo BrooksAL-5

"I'm also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I'm approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it." (also numerous quotes from a March 31, 2011 committee hearing)

Rep. Paul BrounGA-10

In June 2009, Broun received a standing ovation when he said that global warming is a "hoax". He said "Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus."[52]

Rep. Larry BucshonIN-8

"The data does not support the premise that carbon dioxide emissions are playing a significant role in the world temperature variations. The temperature of the Earth has been changing over centuries with warmer and colder periods throughout history."

Rep. Michael BurgessTX-26

“My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the science behind global temperature changes is not settled.”

Rep. Dave CampMI-4

"What is the science of climate change? What can it definitively tell us? Can it say who is responsible for it? Can it tell us what impact we can have on it, and if we can, what are the results—both positive and negative? From what I have read, there remains a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change."

Rep. Eric CantorVA-7

“If there’s been any constant in human history, it’s been climate change. The real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all of that.”

Rep. Shelley CapitoWV-2

Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous.

Rep. John CarterTX-31

“Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.”

Rep. Bill CassidyLA-6

"It could be secular. It could just be a shift on the axis."

Rep. Steve ChabotOH-1

Climategate is “just another example of many in the press, and many in the academic/scientific community having bought into the whole global warming/climate change ‘religion,’ no matter what the facts are.”

Rep. Jason ChaffetzUT-3

Chaffetz lambasts global warming (calling it “a farce”).

Rep. Doug CollinsGA-9

When asked if he believes human activity is contributing to climate change, Representative Collins answered “no.”

Rep. Michael ConawayTX-11

Science is never settled…they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming.

Rep. Kevin CramerND

When asked if he believed that human activity is contributing to climate change, Mr. Cramer answered “no” and went on to say: “The manipulation of free markets by economic policy disguised as environmental policy based on inconclusive science should not be tolerated. Free people producing energy other free people want and are willing to pay for should be the core of U.S. energy policy.”

Rep. Rick Crawford AR-1

He also fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.”

Rep. John Culberson TX-7

"This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being…. While this blatant power grab is disappointing, the truly alarming part is that the scientific evidence the EPA used to support its conclusion comes directly from United Nations (U.N.) climate data – the same data that were recently found to have been deliberately manipulated to support the global warming movement. When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the proposed endangerment finding in April, she readily admitted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Emails recently made public offer definitive proof of a collective effort among some U.N. scientists to misrepresent climate data in order to foist their political agenda onto the public."

Rep. Steve Daines MT

In a radio interview with Montana Public Radio, Daines admits the climate is changing but questions the impacts by man, that there is “significant debate here,” the “jury is still out,” and brings up the debate of sun/solar cycles versus greenhouse gases.

Rep. Rodney Davis IL-13

During an interview with Illinois Public Media radio, a constituent asked Representative Rodney Davis what he planned to do to combat climate change, and he responded that “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” He then went on the say that climate change is real but the debate is over whether or not it is manmade or natural.

Rep. Jeff Denham CA-10

"Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet."

Rep. John Duncan TN-2

Supports claim that global warming is “the greatest scam in history.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold TX-27

"Global warming is scare tactic used by groups with a political agenda. [sic]"

Rep. John Fleming LA-4

“Quietly released scientific report without fanfare. Global warming, to the the extent that it ever existed, halted 16 years ago. So, what is Washington controlled by the radical environmental agenda?”

Rep. Bill Flores TX-17

It is time we stopped putting petty politics based on dubious “agenda-driven, scientific” research ahead of creating more American energy.

Rep. Randy Forbes VA-4

Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions.

Rep. Virginia Foxx NC-5

North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx referenced books by climate-change skeptics and lamented that some environmentalists “think that we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does.”

Rep. Trent Franks AZ-8

I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.

Rep. Cory Gardner CO-4

Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming... "“I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news."

Rep. Scott Garrett NJ-5

"The real question that still exists in a lot of people’s minds, experts and non-experts alike, on the area of global warming and what role the government should have in this realm. … I’ve heard a number of experts on both sides of the equation on this issue and to me the evidence, the question is still out there."

Rep. Bob Gibbs OH-7

"It is clear that science has not been able to document what is happening and if human activity is causing a problem or not . Many scientists are on both sides of this issue and the proponents of climate change have not substantiated their findings based on sound science."

Rep. Phil Gingrey GA-11

Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"

Rep. Louie Gohmert TX-1

"We’re finding out the world is staying the same or actually cooling."

Rep. Paul Gosar AZ-4

Further, “global warming” now known as “climate change” is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.

Rep. Trey Gowdy SC-4

"Global warming has not been proven to the satisfaction of the constituents I seek to serve."

Rep. Tim Griffin AR-2

“I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.”

Rep. Morgan Griffith VA-9

"[Climate Change] led to the Vikings dominating Europe for several hundred years."

Rep. Michael Grimm NY-11

"I have been one of the guys who have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. The jury is obviously still out on it. We see nothing but conflicting reports from across the globe. I’m not sure, I’m not a scientist."

Rep. Ralph Hall TX-4

"I'm really more fearful of freezing. And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing it on real scientific facts"

Rep. Gregg Harper MS-3

"I don't believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming."

Rep. Andy Harris MD-1

Harris said there is a recent warming trend, but “I don’t understand or know, or I don’t believe anybody really knows, how to place that in historic perspective.” He also said human contribution to climate change “is also a complex question,” and that even if humans are contributing, “can you change that contribution given that we burn a lot of carbon-based products to create the energy we need to run the economy of the world?”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler MO-4

"Enjoying another beautiful global warming day in Missouri! Rep. Skelton and the UN Summit need to quit their dist. of wealth for a hoax."

Rep. Doc Hastings WA-4

Hastings told the Columbia Basin Herald he understands global warming exists. He said the cause of global warming is the concern. Hastings said he is not convinced people and their actions are the cause of global warming and questions if it is a natural process because the earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout history.

Rep. Richard Hudson NC-8

When asked if human activity is contributing to climate change, he responded no.

Rep. Bill Huizenga MI-2

"Today’s global warming doomsayers simply lack the scientific evidence to support their claims. A host of leaders in the scientific community have recognized that the argument for drastic anthropogenic global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism."

Rep. Randy Hultgren IL-14

"The greatest impact on our climate clearly is the sun, and we have very little impact on the sun and how much energy and temperature the sun is sending to the earth. We have seen clearly over thousands of years that at different times more energy has come through and different times less energy has come through, and that variation has impacted climate change. Over the thousands of years that’s been recorded we’ve had both colder times and warmer times. It happens to be that we’ve recently come out of a warmer time and now actually we’re headed in to a little bit of a colder time, the impact of the sun is much different than impact that we could have had."

Rep. Duncan Hunter CA-50

Hunter ridiculed the notion that climate change needs to be addressed by Congress. “Nobody really knows the cause,” he said. “The earth cools, the earth warms…It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2…Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives…We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.”

Rep. Robert Hurt VA-5

Hurt said Climategate is “scientists who have given us something that is not true. It is faulty information and it has real consequences in the 5th District, in the loss of jobs and in power bills from Appalachian Power Co.”

Rep. Darrell Issa CA-49

One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins KS-2

I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health.

Rep. Bill Johnson OH-6

In another, more accurate, sense, Johnson is a man with a degree in computer science who is awash in oil and gas money and denies climate science, asserting in 2011, “I am not an alarmist that believes that greenhouse gas emissions coming from the coal industry are causing major problems.”

Rep. Walter Jones NC-3

“However, there is substantial disagreement regarding the extent of this warming, whether it’s caused by human activity or simply nature taking its course, and what solutions, if any, should be implemented. The bottom line is that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on this issue.”

Rep. Steve King IA-4

"There are a couple of German engineers that took that theory apart and proved it wrong in a lab. I’ve read through that, but I’d have to go back to school for a half a year or a year to tell you I followed every bit of their rationale. But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted."

Rep. Jack Kingston GA-1

"We have a moral duty to be good stewards of the environment but growing the government’s coffers and killing jobs based on questionable science is a bridge too far."

Rep. Doug LaMalfa CA-1

It’s “bad science.” It’s “Al Gore.” It’s a “naturally occurring cycle.” You should “look at the numbers.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn CO-5

Lamborn said there are “a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man made.” However, he said there is “not much unanimity” about it. At that statement many audience members commented that 98 percent was “pretty unanimous.” Lamborn said he spoke to a scientist who believes that global warming is man-made and “should materialize” 50-100 years from now. He said there are issues that need dealing with now. Eckler asked again if he would listen to the evidence claiming global warming is here and now. After more back-and-forth on the issue, Lamborn said, “I think we’ve beaten this horse to a pulp. I’m listening to all sides.”

Rep. James Lankford OK-5

"This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else. And that generation will be ticked."

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer MO-3 Luetkemeyer’s legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man-made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with…. Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis WY

“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.”

Rep. Thomas Massie KY-4 Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Mr. Massie, a Kentucky Republican, said he was “disappointed” that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on “human activity” and accused some of “denying the evidence of scientists.” “As somebody with a science-type background, I took offense at that,” Mr. Massie said during a panel meeting billed as “Conversations With Conservatives.” “I would challenge him to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity.”

Rep. Tom McClintock CA-4

"We're all told of course the debate is over and that all the scientists agree... and as all of you know, that is succinctly not the case."

Rep. David McKinley WV-1

Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers WA-5

"We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing."

Rep. Candice Miller MI-10

"There is little doubt that the world’s climate is changing, because the climate has always changed. Just ask the dinosaurs or remember the ice age and how huge glaciers melting and moving formed our Great Lakes. The question is whether the current climate change is human-induced."

Rep. Mick Mulvaney SC-5

"Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming."

Rep. Randy Neugebauer TX-19

"What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication."

Rep. Kristi Noem SD

Voted for an SD House Resolution stating that: "That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative"

Rep. Devin Nunes CA-22

"However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it."

Rep. Pete Olson TX-22

"The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data."

Rep. Erik Paulsen MN-3

When asked if human beings are contributing to global warming, Paulsen said he wasn’t smart enough to know whether that’s true or not.

Rep. Stevan Pearce NM-2

“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap... why should the rest of be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?”

Rep. Ted Poe TX-2

The consensus has been for some time that global warming, climate change, continues because man is the perpetrator. Now we are beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus that there is global warming or climate change. We now have heard about Climategate, where the expert scientists hid emails in England that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. We have heard now new evidence that even NASA is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change.

Rep. Tom Price GA-6

"This decision goes against all common sense, especially considering the many recent revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled science’ of global warming."

Rep. Scott Rigell VA-2

Does not believe that climate change is caused by human actions.

Rep. Phil Roe TN-1

"Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher CA-48

"Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducable, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results. In no area has this been more obvious than climate change. Because the Kyoto Treaty and much of the suggested environmental legislation would decimate jobs in southern California, constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occuring."

Rep. Todd Rokita IN-4

"The link between manmade carbon emissions and measureable harm to the environment is a topic currently under debate. While there may exist a link, the current debate continues."

Rep. Peter Roskam IL-6

Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science.

Rep. Keith Rothfus PA-12

When asked, "Do you believe that global warming which is now referred to as climate change is a fact, and if so do you believe that it is man-made?" Rothfus responded, "I do not believe it’s man-made and I am not convinced that it is a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming."

Rep. Paul Ryan WI-1

Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.

Rep. Steve Scalise LA-1

Asked whether he worries that he could be wrong, Scalise cited an “increasing number of scientists who are raising major questions about the global warming theories.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner WI-5

"I think that the science is inconclusive on this...I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine."

Rep. John Shimkus IL-15

Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"

Rep. Lamar Smith TX-21

“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,” he said in a statement (San Antonio Express-News, 12/6/12)

Rep. Chris Stewart UT-2

"The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. "

Rep. Steve Stivers OH-15

Disagrees with the statement: “Man-made global warming is a scientific fact.”

Rep. Steve Stockman TX-36

“The new fad thing that’s going through America and around the world. It’s called global warming.”

Rep. Lee Terry NE-2

"There's an argument here on the true impact of man... Is it really 97 to 3? I don't think so."

Rep. Glenn Thompson PA-5

"In the debate and most of the debate of the majority party here, it’s not so much based on real science as political science or even, to some degree, science fiction. And so, to look at why this–and I looked at every piece of legislation in terms of cost benefits. And when we look at the benefits of this, I think human activity, it’s acknowledged, does contribute towards carbon dioxide emissions. But it’s less than 4 percent. To put that into perspective, forest fires, wildfires contribute 10 percent of CO2 emissions. And so not even with the debate of, you know, are we warming the Earth or not warming the Earth, there’s a lot of smart folks out there that are publishing research or earning their dissertations based on debating that science. But what the experts agree upon, the researchers agree is, human activity is less than 4 percent contributes towards CO2 emissions."

Rep. Mac Thornberry TX-13

"Global Warming: Politics or Science? Some scientists believe that the temperature of the Earth is increasing rapidly. Others, such as those at the United Kingdom’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies, say that the Earth’s temperature is not much different now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The case that man is causing any change in temperature is even more hotly contested."

Rep. Pat Tiberi OH-12

GOP Rep. Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township doesn’t think there is a consensus among scientists about whether global warming is proven.

Rep. Scott Tipton CO-3

Scott Tipton (R-CO) conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton.

Rep. Fred Upton MI-6

"Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature under debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050 it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings [on the Climategate emails]."

Rep. Ann Wagner MO-2

"Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science..."

Rep. Tim Walberg MI-7

"I read scientists, editors…an equal number at the very least that say just the opposite that this is something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles."

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland GA-3

Westmoreland, who isn’t convinced that global warming is occurring, denied that he was trying to divert attention from Gore’s testimony. Also Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"

Rep. Ed Whitfield KY-1

"Misrepresenting scientific research to support one’s own personal beliefs, particularly on an international stage, is dangerous, disingenuous and simply unacceptable. I call on Mr. Gore to come clean about the real science surrounding climate change and let the American people come to their own conclusions on global warming."

Rep. Joe Wilson SC-2

When asked if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Wilson answered “no.”

Rep. Robert Wittman VA-1

"We must recognize that these climactic cycles of heating and cooling have been going on well before man appeared on earth."

Rep. Don Young AK

"I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome."

Rep. Todd Young IN-9

“The science is not settled.”


Deniers in the Senate 


Sen. Kelly Ayotte NH

Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.”

Sen. John Barrasso WY

When Barrasso was in college and medical school, he said, the "best science at the time said that the Ice Age is coming.... So all I'm saying is, how much of the wealth of this nation are we going to put at risk for something that may be poorly spent money?"

Sen. Roy Blunt MO

“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”

Sen. John Boozman AR

"Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question."

Sen. Thomas Coburn OK

“I’ve read the basic scientific studies, and a lot of it doesn’t add up for me,”

Sen. John Cornyn TX

“Taxpayer funded research by NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) concerning the warmest years on record has been the subject of dispute and after challenges, has been changed and re-released. What is less known is why the changes were made and what inherent flaws existed in the original data, if any. It is important to understand the reasons behind these alterations and further to avoid suspicion that data was massaged to fit the prescribed theory that global warming is attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

Sen. Michael Crapo ID

"While there is no dispute over the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the planet’s history, the underlying cause of these climactic shifts is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate."

Sen. Ted Cruz TX

"There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong."

Sen. Deb Fischer NE

Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, 'I certainly don't support cap-and-trade.' She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate.

Sen. Chuck Grassley IA

"But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy."

Sen. Orrin Hatch UT

"There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming – regardless of its cause – would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling."

Sen. John Hoeven ND

"Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it."

Sen. Jim Inhofe OK

"I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."[36]

Sen. John Isakson GA

"Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint."

Sen. Mike Johanns NE

There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate.

Sen. Ron Johnson WI

"“I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It's far more likely that it's sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time.”

Sen. Rand Paul KY

"[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this."

Sen. Rob Portman OH

"When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade."

Sen. Pat Roberts KS

"There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism."

Sen. Marco Rubio FL

The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather. --- "I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it," he told the Tampa Tribune

Sen. Richard Shelby AL

"Global warming continues to be an issue of significant debate in Congress and throughout the scientific community. In addition, important scientific research is ongoing as there are still many questions that must be answered before we take steps to address this issue. For example, is the climate change phenomenon cyclical or is it a function of manmade pollutants, or both? I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy."

Sen. Pat Toomey PA

"My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated."

Sen. David Vitter LA

"I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory."

Sen. Roger Wicker MS

"Science shows that there is an increase of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. But it has not been compellingly proven that mankind is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, nor is it clear what impact CO2 has on Earth’s temperatures."



© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Climate Deniers Could Learn from Pascal's Wager
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers
Video - Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Climate Change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Video: Climate Deniers Debate Global Warming
Building Support for Action on Climate Change
A Reintroduction to the Climate Denying Duo Known as the Koch Brothers
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
What is Wrong with the Right
Right Wing War Against Sustainability
The Politics of Intransigence

Infographic: 13 Oil Spills in 30 Days

Obama Refutes the Keystone XL's Economic and Jobs Benefits

On Saturday July 27, US President Barack Obama said the number of permanent jobs created by the Keystone XL pipeline would be between 50 and 100. That is far less than the tens of thousands touted by supporters of the pipeline. If it goes forward the Keystone XL which would ferry tar sands oil from Alberta Canada to the US Gulf Coast. A decision on the fate of the pipeline is expected late this year or early in 2014.

"Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator," Obama said in a New York Times interview, "There is no evidence that that's true. The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people."

Republicans and many business groups are pushing the administration to approve the pipeline while climate scientists and environmental groups are urging the administration to kill the project. Advocates for the pipeline have consistently justified the climate destroying pipeline as an economic boon and a great way to invest public money. Opponents to the pipeline point to the huge amount of emissions generated by fossil fuels and the tar sands in particular. James Hansen the recently retired NASA climate scientist and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, has referred to the building of the Keystone XL as "game over" for efforts to combat climate change.

Considering the $5.3 billion price tag for the pipeline that translates to at least 53,000,000 per permanent job. This is somewhat ironic given the criticisms leveled at the President for his stimulus packages which have already created millions of jobs at far less cost. (According to a 2012 report by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus was responsible for 2 million new jobs in the last three months of 2011).

While the GOP like to call the President a jobs killer, a non-partisan report released in April indicates that Obama has actually created more jobs than his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. This is quite a feat in light of the financial meltdown and ongoing global economic lethargy faced by the Obama administration.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
The Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama's Georgetown University Speech
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta

On June 27, an oil spill occurred at Canadian Natural Resources Limited's (CNRL) Primrose operations 75km east of Lac la Biche. The spill happened on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR). DeSmog.ca reported a release of bitumen emulsion, which is a mixture of heavy tar sands crude and water from oil production.

According to a press release from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) neither the company nor the government are certain of the volume of emulsion spilled.

It is hard to gain access to the site, and the Huffington Post reports that even the Beaver Lake Cree have been denied access to the land which is located on their traditional territory. Sources that did gain access to the site said that the damage of the spill is much worse than the company, government or media are reporting. The damage was described as "black puddles" or "black spots" coming up in different areas.

An employee on site confirmed that the tar sands emulsion seeping from the ground is not a pipeline spill. It is troubling that, industry and government do not know what the spill is. What is known is that there is a lot of oil and they do not know how to stop it.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Video - The Tar Sands Give Canada the Worst Climate Record in the Western World
Tar Sands Reality Check Counters Misinformation
Canadian Conservative's Support for Dirty Energy
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Conservatives Slash Environmental Assessment
Canadian Prime Minister Dismisses Resistance to the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Video: NASA's Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington

Event - The Responsible Business Forum

The Responsible Business Forum will take place on November 18-19, 2013 in Singapore. The event is being organized by Global initiatives, Eco-Business, WBCSD, WWF International, and the TEEB Business Coalition. More than 500 regional business leaders, NGOs and policy-makers will be in attendance.

Tracks will include agriculture & forestry, palm oil, consumer goods, mining, financial services, building & urban infrastructure and energy

Transformation Growth and the green economy

By 2050, the global population will hit 9 billion people and the increased demand for water, food and energy will exceed our current capacity to provide. This will be the defining challenge of the 21st century, but also its greatest economic opportunity. Nothing short of a revolutionary approach to the way governments think and businesses operate is required to meet this global challenge. Business leaders and policymakers who do not embrace the transformation to a global, green economy will find themselves left behind in the new world order.

The Responsible Business Forum on Sustainable Development will bring together business leaders, NGOs and policy-makers from around Southeast Asia to discuss commitments and policy recommendations to increase sustainability across seven sectors - agriculture & forestry, palm oil, consumer goods, mining, financial services, building & urban infrastructure and energy.

The forum will discuss the transformational journey to the green economy and offer practical ways to accelerate business solutions and policy frameworks for a more sustainable world.

To register click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Top 10 Sustainability Reports of 2012
20 Studies Demonstrate the Business Case for Sustainability
Sustainability Calling: Its Now or Never
Corporate Sustainability Leadership in America
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
Sustainability is an Unstoppable Megatrend
Sustainable Successes and Failures
Cost Benefit Analysis of Sustainable Business
Adopt CSR or Risk a Consumer Boycott
Increasing Sustainable Innovation Demands Change
Mandating Corporate Sustainability Data
Webinar - How the Company of 2020 Will Operate in a Resource-Constrained World
Video - Sustainability in a Business Context
Video - Sustainability 101
The State of the Sustainability Profession, 2013
Five Sustainability Questions for 2013
Sustainability Past and Future: Executives Review 2012 and Make Predictions for 2013
Consumer Awareness Driving Corporate Sustainability in 2013
Top 5 Sustainability Trends for 2013
The Pervasiveness of Sustainability: Three Trends That Matter in 2013
13 Sustainability Predictions for 2013
Corporate Sustainability Report: Transitioning from 2012 to 2013
The Growth of Corporate Sustainability in 2013
The Green Market Oracle's Top 20 Stories of 2012: Sustainability, Science and Weather
Top 10 Sustainability Reports of 2012

Event - The Future of Sustainability Reporting 2013

This event will take place on 6th of September 2013, 10.00 to 18.00, at the Conference Center of the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, Schumannstrasse 8, 10117 Berlin. It will be in German with simultaneous translation of the plenary parts English-German and German-English. It is being presented by BSD and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. This is one of the most important events on sustainability and integrated reporting since GRI's launch of G4 in May and a few months before IIRC's framework launch in December.

This symposium will offer a critical reflection of the status quo of the ongoing development of Sustainability Reporting in the European and international context. It will include exciting panel discussions and workshops which will include Barbara Unmüßig (Heinrich Böll Foundation), Dr. Günther Bachmann (German Council for Sustainable Development), Jana Gebauer (IÖW) Marcello Palazzi (B Lab Europe), senior representatives from GRI, IIRC, SASB and GISR, the CEO's of Truecost, True Price Foundation and Ex'tax, as well as corporate representatives of Puma, EnBW, SAP, Thyssen Krupp, Flughafen München, WeSustain, Deloitte.

Sustainability Reporting is experiencing an exciting year in 2013. In April, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has released the Draft Framework for Integrated Reporting with the objective to launch Version 1 of the Framework by end of the year. At the end of May the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has released GRI G4. Furthermore, the developments around the sector-specific indicator family of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the development process of the principles and indicators of the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) are relevant to the development of sustainability reporting.

Besides these short- and mid-term developments from the perspective of standard setting, political framing, best practices from corporates, and new initiatives around the internalization of external costs into ‘true pricing’ as well as the needed and aligned change of taxation systems towards a ‘sustainable’ economic model are of growing interest and importance. How will sustainability reports and integrated reports react to these new themes or possibly even support their further development?

Other questions that will be addressed:
  • How should a company position itself in this variety of different developments?
  • Which activities are meaningful now, which ones maybe next year?
  • Which initiatives and standards will be accepted by the market players?
  • What will the EU and its member states ask from companies in the future?
  • How will stock exchanges move forward in requiring sustainability reporting information and how will the financial markets react to this new wave of players?
  • Has sustainability reporting evolved substantially over the years?
  • Do companies report what is really important, or should we rethink sustainability reporting, looking at the increasingly obvious problems deriving form climate change, water scarcity, biodiversity, labor and human rights as well as corruption issues? What do we really learn from sustainability and integrated reports so far?
  • Is integrated reporting paving the way to integrated thinking?
  • What effect will new initiatives around true costing, true pricing and true taxation have on sustainability and integrated reporting?
It’s time for a fundamental analysis of the current and potential future state of sustainability reporting, showing a clear correlation between the relevant developments and providing the ability to make strategic decisions regarding the future of your own sustainability reporting.

Participation fees: 350,-€ plus 66,50€ 19% VAT per participant, including materials and lunch/coffee breaks

The number of participants is limited. Sign up now and reserve your place for this important event. To register click here.

Related Posts
Webinar - Why GRI G4 Will Trigger New Directions In Sustainability Reporting
Ernst & Young: 2012 Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards
Corporate Sustainability Reporting
The Future of Integrated Sustainability Reporting
The GRI Sustainability Reporting
GRI Sustainability Reporting on Anti-Corruption and GHGs
GRI & Sustainability Reporting Framework in Business School
GRI Reporting Tool is Good for Business
G3 Guidelines and GRI Sustainability Reporting
GHG Protocol and Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard
Sustainable Business Methods, Strategy, Management and Reporting
Stock Exchanges Increasingly Requesting Reporting from Listed Companies
Mandatory Emissions Reporting on the UK Stock Exchange
Three SAP Reports on Sustainability
Puma's Reporting and Sustainable Supply Chain
The Business Community is Moving Forward with Sustainability Including Reporting