Showing posts with label dirty energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dirty energy. Show all posts

The Energy End Game: Renewables vs Fossil Fuels

The combination of market forces and changing public sensibilities are driving a major shift in the energy landscape. The need for renewable energy to combat climate change is incontrovertible, while a plethora of warnings tell us that we are rapidly exhausting our carbon budgets. Ending fossil fuels is a mathematical imperative if we are to have a chance of keeping temperatures from rising above the upper threshold limit of 1.5 - 2.0 C.

In 2016 we were already seeing how diminishing profits were contributing to the fall of fossil fuel and the rise of renewables  In 2020 the momentum away from fossil fuels is undeniable. They are being shunned by investors, insurance companies and banks. Fossil fuels are approaching the end of their life cycle while renewables are becoming increasingly attractive due to the declining cost of solar and storage.

In the U.S. Donald Trump's fossil fuel powered politics rejects renewables and supports dirty energy. Although Trump is infamous for his corruption,  Republican's fossil fuel powered corruption.
has been driving the party for years before Trump came on the scene. 

Evidence for the demise of the fossil fuel industry is evident in Canada where the Teck mine, the largest tarsands mine ever proposed, has become the latest casualty of changing market dynamics and public attitudes.  The disdain for dirty energy is also being felt in Australia where people are rejecting the coal powered agenda of Scott Morrison. The polls show that people want climate action and this means we must end fossil fuels. Public attitudes are increasingly distrustful of the fossil fuel industry's anti-climate agenda.

Countries like Sweden, Norway and Ireland are transitioning to renewables. Even MENA countries are showing clean energy leadership. However, in many parts of the world government policies are an impediment to the transition to clean energy. However, despite headwinds from climate denying leaderships, the solar and wind industries continued to thrive in 2019

The transition from away from fossil fuels to renewables is already underway. Driven by a wide range of divestment narratives, the fossil fuel industry is losing its social license to operate.  The fossil fuel industry may be dying, however they can be expected to fight to the bitter end.



Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?


This video addresses both sides of the debate on whether the Keystone XL pipeline will increase GHG production. The proposed pipeline would ferry tarsands from Alberta to refineries on Texas's Gulf Coast. On June 25th, 2013, President Obama made it clear that he will not authorize the building of the Keystone XL pipeline if it results in an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs). While it is widely understood that the tarsands are much more GHG intensive than traditional fossil fuels, the question is whether this would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Those that support the building of the Keystone XL say that in the absence of the pipeline there would be increased transportation traffic (tankers and trucks) which would result in even greater levels of GHGs.

What this video does not address is the fact that more fossil fuel infrastructure and easier access to dirty sources of energy will detract from market based forces that would decrease our reliance on climate change causing sources of energy.

Related ArticlesThe 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
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for KeystoneCanada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Canadian Implications of Obama's National Climate Strategy

On June 25, 2013, US President Barack Obama delivered a speech that will reverbate around the world and directly impact their neighbors to the north. Several years ago Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to match US climate change targets and align the two nations’ climate policy. Now that President Obama has launched an ambitious strategy to combat climate change, Harper will be hard pressed to make good on his promise.

Obama has made it clear that under his leadership the US will substantially reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Much of American emissions (40%) come from coal plants which is why these facilities are the primary focus of the President's plan. In Canada coal generated emissions are only 10 per cent of the nation's emissions. However, the President's climate strategy will directly impact Canada's GHG intensive fossil fuel industry and tarsands oil in particular.

Fossil fuels are the largest source of emissions in Canada. Oil and natural gas (including extraction, pipelining and refining) account for 25 percent of country's GHGs and environment Canada anticipates that number will increase to 28 percent by 2020.

Obama's new national climate change mitigation strategy will put pressure on Canada to reduce their emissions. The President's new climate strategy conflicts with the aspiration of Canada's ruling Conservatives who are seeking to expand the nation's role as a dirty energy super-power.  Harper's federal Conservatives have worked tenaciously to support the expansion of Canada's oil and gas and the tar sands in particular. While it has helped to buoy the Canadian economy, the Harper government must now reckon with the fact they have tied Canada's future to a dirty, dangerous and destructive industry.

The American government is changing the way it does business and this will have implications for nations like Canada who have failed to assume responsibility for the emissions they produce.

The President made it clear that he will not tolerate inaction. "I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here."

As the President enacts regulations and policies to reduce US GHG emissions, Canada's federal government will be pressured to curtail their expansion of dirty energy.

© 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
Canada at Odds with US and China on Climate Change
Climate Scientists' Urge Canadian Minister to Back-off Expanded Fossil Fuel Production
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canada has the Dirtiest Oil on Earth (Video)
Canada's GHG Ranking
Leading Canadian Economist to Tell Europeans about the Climate Impacts of the Tar Sands
Canada to Fight EU Proposal Labeling Tar Sands as Dirty
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Take Another Swipe at Environmental Protections
Report Urges Canada's Federal Conservatives to Regulate Oil and Gas Sector to Meet GHG Targets
Canadian Conservative Minister Attacks Climate Scientist
Canada Withdraws from UN Efforts to Combat Desertification
Canada Pulls out of Kyoto
Canada is an Environmental Pariah at Rio+20
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
Canada is Banking on Carbon Capture to Offset Tar Sands
Enbridge withdraws from Canada's Carbon Capture Farce

Video - Bill McKibben and NEI President Bob Massie: "Divestment And The New Economy"



"Divestment And The New Economy" Bill McKibben and NEI President Bob Massie discuss the relationship between fossil fuel divestment, the climate crisis, and the transition to a New Economy. In recent weeks, the movement to divest college and university endowments from the fossil fuel industry has spread to over 250 schools. Just last weekend, hundreds of students converged outside of Philadelphia to strategize and grow the movement. Today, those activists are back on campus meeting with their peers and planning ways to escalate their campaigns and fight for their futures.


These brave young people are asking difficult questions about the role of universities and the ethics of one of the world's most powerful industries. Now, students at Middlebury, the birthplace of 350, are using the opportunity to ask even harder questions about the basic nature of our economic system.

On Wednesday, March 6th they came together for a day-long summit supported by the New Economics Institute which seeks to create space for the Middlebury community to explore the kinds of economic alternatives that are springing up all over the world.

Related Articles
Video - Bill McKibben: Climate Change is an Environmental and Economic Problem
2013 Global Power Shift in Istanbul Turkey
Debate: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet? (Video)
350.org's Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel (2012)
350.org's Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots (2012)
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuels (2012)
350.org's Bill Mckibben Calls Hurricane Sandy a Wake-up Call (2012)
Bill McKibben on The Fight of Our Lives Video (2012)
Business and Climate Impacts Day from 350.org (2012)
Success of the End Fossil Fuels Campaign (2012)

World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants

Proposed coal projects around the world will quadruple the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the US. The World Resources Institute  (WRI) released a report in November titled, Global Coal Risk Assessment. The report found that there are 1,199 new coal power plants in the works, totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts of capacity worldwide.

To put this in perspective, 1.4 million megawatts is four times the capacity of all the coal-fired power plants in the US. The world's leading coal powered nations going forward are China, Germany and India, all of which are increasingly active in transnational coal-fired project development.

China is the world largest coal consumer and they are expected to increase their usage until 2020, when demand is finally expected to level off. India continues to rely on coal and by 2025 that country is expected to overtake the U.S. as the number two consumer of coal. Coal demand has shifted from the Atlantic market to the Pacific market.

Although coal projects are planned in 59 countries, seventy-six percent of the coal plants are proposed for India and China. The US ranks seventh in coal power plant development.

Although there have been significant increases in natural gas extraction, coal continues to be used in the US and around the world. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates, the global coal trade rose by 13.4 percent in 2010, reaching 1,083 million tonnes.

According to the IEA, coal supplied nearly half of the increase in global energy consumption over the last decade, growing faster than renewables. And the agency predicts that coal will continue its rise in the decades ahead.

To view the locations of proposed coal-fired power plants by country in an interactive map click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Warning from the International Energy Agency: The World's Ongoing Reliance on Fossil Fuels Crushes Hopes of Averting Climate Change

PricewaterhouseCoopers Climate Change Warning
International Renewable Energy Institute Climate Warning

World Meteorological Organization Climate Warning
Scientist Warn Time is Running Out to Avert a Climate Catastrophe
World Banks Warning: We Need to Act Now on Climate Change (Video)
World Bank Climate Change Warning
UNEP Warning: We are on The Brink of a Climate Catastrophe
World Bank Report Warns of A 4°C World
Comprehensive Review of the Science on Anthropogenic Climate Change
10 Charts on Climate Change
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History (NOAA)
Strong Body of Evidence for a Changing Climate
American Meteorological Society Corroborates Anthropogenic Climate Change
More Scientific Support for Anthropogenic Climate Change
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report
A New Study Indicates We Are Reaching a Tipping Points
Environmental Tipping Points
Climate Change Science
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring 2012
2012 is but the Latest Year Marked by Heat and Drought
Heat in the US Northeast and Drought Around the World IN 2012
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
New NASA Video Graphically Illustrates that the Earth is Warming
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Debunking CO2 Myths and The Science of Climate Change
Primer on CO2 and other GHGs
Video: Why People are Confused about the Scientific Veracity of Climate Change
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
The Effects of Global Warming

The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion

BP has been ordered to pay an unprecedented 4.5 billion in fines as the costs of their 2010 oil fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico continue to mount. On Thursday November 15, 2012, BP pleaded guilty to 14 felony counts related to the explosion and subsequent oil spill at the site of its Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The plea agreement with federal prosecutors includes charges of manslaughter for the 11 workers who were killed and one felony count for obstruction of justice for false statements made to Congress about the amount of oil leaking from the out-of-control well.

The breakdown of the 4.5 billion in fines is as follows:

  • $2.4 billion for is to be paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for environmental restoration, preservation, and conservation efforts throughout the affected area
  • $1.3 billion in criminal fines, which the company would pay out in installments over five years
  • $350 million is to be paid to the National Academy of Sciences over five years
  • $525 million civil penalty satisfies a Securities and Exchange Commission charge that BP had obstructed Congress by lying to Congress about the amount of oil flowing from the well
BP's cleanup efforts have already cost the company nearly $18 billion which are part of $42 billion in pre-tax accounting charges the company has taken. Here is a partial breakdown:
  • 4.5 billion announced on November 15 (the largest corporate criminal penalty in U.S. history)
  • $15 billion that BP has paid so far into a $20 billion trust fund to compensate victims of the spill
  • $7.8 billion settlement for private injury claims from roughly 100,000 fishermen and other business owners in the Gulf region that were affected by the spill
Other civil claims are still pending and they could amount to tens of billions in additional penalties. Potential civil claims under the Clean Water Act allows for fines ranging from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel (and even higher end if gross negligence is determined) which could amount to additional fines of $20 billion.

These are not the only fines that could be levied, there could also be federal and state sanctions under the Natural Resource Damages Act, and assorted private civil claims, securities claims, or state economic loss claims.

Estimates for the total amount of penalties that BP will ultimately have to pay reach as high as $90 billion. Claims may also be filed against BP's corporate partners including the rig owner Transocean and the well services company Halliburton.

In addition to the fines levied against BP, individuals are also being held accountable. three former BP employees are facing felony charges of manslaughter and obstruction of justice. Two of the three men could face up to 10 years in prison for each of the 11 deaths that resulted form the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy

US Energy: Coal Declining While Renewables Increasing

Coal is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world and as revealed by its use in America at the end of 2011, it appears to be declining. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) coal's share of monthly power generation in the US decreased to below 40 percent in both November and December 2011. We have not seen monthly oil totals below 40 percent in more than three decades (March 1978).

The reason given for this decline is falling natural gas prices. Another factor involves the closure of 106 coal plants between January 2010 and February 2012. These coal plants represents a total emissions profile of 162 million tons of carbon a year.

EIA data also shows that renewable energy generation is increasing. This growth has been supported by Federal and State programs, including federal tax credits, state renewable portfolio standards, and a federal renewable fuels standard. The EIA forecasts that renewable energy will account for 33 percent of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2010 to 2035.

Federal production tax credits and grants for electricity from certain renewable sources as well as State-level renewable portfolio standards have encouraged both capacity additions and increased generation from wind and other renewable sources.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Renewable Energy in 2012: The Global Climate and Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
Government Incentives are Growing Renewables
Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear in the US
Renewable Energy Can Replace Fossil Fuels
US States Renewable Energy Ranking
Republican Governors See Value in Renewables
UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
UK Government Investments in Efficiency and Renewables
The EU Debt Crisis did Not Curb the Growth of Renewables in 2011
Africa a Renewable Energy Superpower
Germany Abandons Nuclear for Coal
Greenpeace Campaign is Asking Facebook to Unfriend Coal
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy

Canadian Prime Minister Dismisses Northern Gateway Pipeline's Environmental Review

The enviromental review of the Northern Gateway pipeline began on January 10, but on the eve of the hearings Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver were dismissing the process. Rather than remaining impartial, the Prime Minister and his government are using their influence to undermine the entire environmental review process.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would carry Alberta’s tar sands nearly 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) through pristine wilderness to B.C.'s northern coast. Over 220 supertankers would then sail through B.C.’s North Coast waterways, something that was previously prohibited due to concerns that an oil spill would ruin precious coastal natural resources.

Those who are concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline are being discredited by the Conservatives. Pro-pipeline propaganda dismisses those with environmental concerns as radicals funded by by foreign special interest groups.

The safety of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project has been challenged by a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Pembina Institute and Living Oceans Society. Nathan Lemphers, senior policy analyst, the Pembina Institute said, “This report shows why the Northern Gateway pipeline is not worth the risk for the communities, rivers and Pacific coastline of British Columbia.”

The report titled Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impacts to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and Pacific Coastline from Tar Sands Oil Transport, documents the risks of transporting tar sands oil to communities along the pipeline and tanker paths, to salmon-bearing rivers and to coastal ecosystems. The report warns that the combination of corrosive oil, the dangerous pathway and treacherous seas make Northern Gateway project an unnecessary threat.

According to Katie Terhune, Energy Campaign Manager, Living Oceans Society. “History has shown that oil tankers come with oil spills. It is not a question of if, but when, a spill will happen.”

Natural Resources Defense Council International Program director, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz said “We have cleaner solutions that will not devastate British Columbia’s great angling rivers, the globally important Great Bear Rainforest and our climate.”

Native groups are testifying against the project in the hearing's early stages and then other opponents of the pipeline will make their voices heard in the third week of March to coincide with the anniversary of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

In the Prime Minister's eyes the outcome of the project is already a foregone conclusion. However, opponents intend to use the hearings as a platform from which to mobilize public opinion.

Canadians may be stuck with the Federal Conservatives for another four years but B.C. Premiere Christy Clark's government is scheduled to face an election in 2013. Almost 100,000 letters opposing the pipeline were already sent to the government of B.C. in December.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Canada is Increasingly One of the World's Worst GHG Emitters

Although Canada has a population of only 30 million people, it is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters. Sadly, under the leadership of Stephen Harper's Conservative government this trend is only getting worse.

According to 2008 data collected by the CDIAC for the UN, Canada is the seventh largest emitter of GHGs in the world. The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation. (These numbers would be much worse if deforestation were included).

According to a World Resources Institute (WRI) list of countries ranked by greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions per capita, Canada has higher emissions per capita than the United States and far greater emissions per capita than China. Canada's emissions per capita data indicate that the country is the 12th largest emitter in the world.

Canada is a world leading emitter of GHG and a comparison of the 2008 and 2010 data indicate significant increases. The 2008 EPI ranked 149 countries on 25 indicators tracked across six established policy categories: Environmental Health, Air Pollution, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Climate Change. The 2008 EPI identifies broadly-accepted targets for environmental performance and measures how close each country comes to these goals. As a quantitative gauge of pollution control and natural resource management results.

In 2010, the EPI ranked 163 countries on 25 performance indicators tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. These indicators provide a gauge at a national government scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy goals.

According to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Canada ranks behind countries like Mexico and Romania.

In 2008 Canada ranked 12th with an EPI score of 86.6, in 2010 after three years under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the countrys ranking fell to 46th and their EPI score fell to 66.4.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Canada Officially Withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol
Video: One South African Asks Why Canada is Silent on Climate Change
Canada is a Pariah at COP 17
The Costs of Canada's Failure to Act on Climate Change
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada

Canada Officially Withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol

Although it was widely expected, one day after the conclusion of COP 17 in Durban, Stephen Harper's Conservatives formally withdrew from the world's only climate change combating global treaty. December 12,2011 will be remebered as the day Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Accord. Environment Minister Peter Kent made the announcement that Canada would be the first nation to withdraw from the Accord.

At one point Canada claimed they were abandoning Kyoto because developed nations like China were not part of the agreement. Ironically, China indicated that is was open to discuss emissions reductions under Kytoto.

A spokesman for China's foreign ministry told reporters that the decision was "regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community." A spokesman for France's foreign ministry called the move "bad news for the fight against climate change."

The Green Party's Elizabeth May questioned the legality of the move and called the timing of the decision "perverse."

As reported in the Calgary Herald, the government of Alberta applauded the decision saying "Kyoto didn't work for Alberta, it didn't work for Canada without all the large emitters at the table."

This move was predictable given that Canada was not able to meet its emissions target due in large part to the emissions from the large scale exploitation of the tar sands, which now account for roughly seven per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gases.

Matt Horne, director of the climate change program at Pembina Institute said "I can't see it being anything but a big black eye for Canada," Horne said. As a result, he said, the current Conservative government now faces "radical and irresponsible" choices if it is to avoid the $14 billion in international penalties he said it must pay for failing to meet those targets as a signatory to the accord.

Like the Republicans in the US, Canadian Conservatives use misinformation and fearmongering to sell their irresponsible governance.

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said the Canadian Environment Minister was not telling the truth when he warned of billions of dollars in international penalties. She said the decision to abandon Kyoto will have "long-term implications" on Canada's international reputation.

Greenpeace Canada spokesman Mike Hudema said in a written statement the Harper government "has imposed a death sentence on many of the world's most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto."

He said the move "destabilizes" the promise of future action on global warming. "This is a further signal that the Harper government is more concerned about protecting polluters than people."

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
Obama Cancels the Keystone XL Pipeline Project

Germany Abandons Nuclear for Coal

In the wake of the explosion of the Fukishima nuclear plant in Japan, Germany shut down 7 nuclear power plants. Coal fired power plants will fill the gaps left by phasing out nuclear power. Germany is moving away from nuclear power even though there is very little similarity between the threats confronted by the German and Japanese reactors.

The Fukushima reactors where not destroyed by the earthquake they were destroyed by a tsunami that crippled the plants cooling system. That is why it does not make sense for Germany, a largely landlocked nation, to fear a Fukishima style meltdown.

This decision is particularly troubling because nuclear power is carbon free while coal fired plants produce global warming causing GHGs. Germany is also compounding the problem by encouraging other countries to follow their lead.

"There will be more coal power ... with consequences for CO2 emissions," said Guenther Oettinger, a former premier of Baden-Wuerttemberg state.

Even if Germany succeeds in removing all nuclear power from its territory, there are nuclear power plants throughout Europe that pose an immediate threat in the event of a meltdown.

Replacing nuclear power with renewable energy is deemed to be expensive. However, even if we ignore the short term health impacts from coal fired energy generation, the costs of failing to reduce emissions dwarf the costs of renewables. Germany could slowly transition away from nuclear power towards renewable energy, instead Germany's politicians have decided to pander to voters rather than lead the nation.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Japan Vows to Replace Nuclear Power with RenewablesUS Nuclear Energy in the Wake of the Fukushima Reactor Explosions
Obama Renews His Commitments to Clean Energy and Small Business
China's Green Innovation and the Challenge for America
Investing in CleanTech: Efficiency Upgrades and Renewable Energy
Ontario Urged to Stay with Green Energy Act
The Renewable Energy Standard Versus The Clean Energy Standard
Germany`s Bid for EV Supremacy

Assessing the Environmental Impact of Operating Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower

At the federal provincial energy conference in July, Canada's energy ministers agreed on the broad strokes of a plan to make Canada a dirty energy superpower. The plan is to squeeze as many petrodollars as they can out of the tar sands which some have described as the most environmentally destructive project on earth.

Normal oil is very harmful to the environment but tar sands oil emits even more heat-trapping and toxic air pollution when it’s produced and refined. Dr. Hansen – America’s top climate scientist – has said that full exploitation of Canada’s tar sands would constitute a “game over” scenario for efforts to solve climate change.
The support for the plan was almost unanimous with the exception of Ontario, whose energy minister refused to support the final communiqué issued because it referred to the Alberta tar sands as “sustainable and responsible”.

Although these plans include initiatives to encourage more efficient energy use, the expansion of fossil fuel exports will increase tanker traffic and pipelines.

Under the plan Canada will increase its exports of oil to the US and beyond to include nations in Asia like China. Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway heavy crude pipeline between the Edmonton area and Kitimat, B.C., is a key export link to Asia. The pipeline would see massive oil tankers navigating narrow coastal waterways.

The pipeline makes communities and fragile coastlines vulnerable to oil spills. It would also make climate change worse and harm the health of people living near refineries. Canada's indigenous people living near tar sands oil extraction sites are already suffering from high rates of cancer.

As reported by PacificWild.org, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project has already been the subject of protests. Last August, hundreds of people gathered outside of Riverlodge in Kitimat to protest. At the same time, some 200 people gathered outside of the Enbridge office in Vancouver to lend their voice to opposing the project.

“Due to the uncertainty associated with the transport of crude oil along our unpredictable northwest coast, the Village of Queen Charlotte has resolved that this project should not proceed…All Haida Gwaii municipalities stand together in opposition to Enbridge because the tradeoffs and risks involved are unacceptable,” said Kris Olsen, a municipal councillor with the Village of Queen Charlotte.

Haida Gwaii in the Queen Charlotte Islands has created a sustainable economy. "The Enbridge project threatens our economy and opportunities for future generations,” Olsen said.

"You look at the size of the tankers, and you see the narrowness of the turns, and you think, how in hell is this ever going to happen without an accident at some point?" Austin said. "I think it's amazing that they even want to consider it.” said Skeena MLA Robin Austin.

Massive protests against the the 1,700-mile long Keystone XL Pipeline are planned in the US later this summer. President Obama is expected to announce his decision about the pipeline as early as September.

"I would presume before September of next fall that we can work as governments to ensure that the federal cabinet can expedite that decision because, ultimately, it will be a federal cabinet decision," said Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert at the conclusion of the two day national energy summit.

There was unanimous agreement amongst the provincial energy ministers, with the exception of Ontario which refused to sign the final communique because it refers to the tar sands as "responsible and sustainable."

Although the Energy Policy Institute of Canada indicated the deal will make Canada an "energy superpower," the Pembina Institute expressed concerns that the tar sands were the focus.

"While the ministers expressed interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy production, their decision to call Canada's oilsands a sustainable source of energy for the world raises serious questions about that goal," said the Pembina Institute's executive director, Ed Whittingham. "An effective framework must also include a price on greenhouse gas pollution as a central feature."

Northern Gateway is going through National Energy Board hearings starting in January 2012. However, there appears to be no stopping Canada's intent to move forward with its plan to be a dirty energy superpower.

In their efforts to expedite tar sands exploitation, the federal Conservatives are planning to revamp the regulatory system which will increase environmental vulnerability. Responsible exploitation of Canada's oil reserves could exist alongside a longer term strategy that focuses on renewable energy. Instead, Canadians appear destined to get an energy policy based on the environmental destructive tar sands.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts

Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
American Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil Pipeline
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Ontario's Green Energy Investments in Sault Ste. Marie
Ontario's Green Energy Act is Leading the Green Economy
Ontario Urged to Stay with Green Energy Act
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Obama's Visit to Canada
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
Why Canadian Environment Minister Resigned
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada
A Made in Canada Sustainable World Order

The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats

The Kochs' are waging a multi-faceted propaganda war against President Obama and Democratic candidates. The big guns in the Kochs' arsenal include Koch Industries, a network of proxy organizations, popular media, the Tea Party and Republican candidates.

Through organizations like the Cato Institute, the Meratus Center, and Americans for Prosperity the Kochs' they have waged proxy wars against President Obama and the Democrats. Many of these organizations fabricate data which are quoted by candidates and faux media like Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh often cites papers created by Koch fronts and an officer at Americans for Prosperity, Walter Williams, often guest-hosts for Limbaugh. Fox News also has ties to the Kochs' proxy organizations. Phil Kerpen, the vice-president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, is a contributor to the Fox News Web site.

Through their proxys, Koch industries has been undermining the President. A recent poll found that fifty-five per cent of Americans felt that Obama is a socialist and this is only one of the many lies that the Koch's proxys helped to promote.

The Tea Party is a very important addition to the Koch stable because it gives the Koch's the grassroots support they have been seeking for decades.

Many Republican candidates are recipients of Koch funding, and many are predicting that the Kochs' efforts will succeed in helping to elect Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections.

However, corporate influence is not foolproof, sometimes common sense triumphs over massive spending. In California despite massive funding from big oil, Proposition 23, which would have rolled back California's environmental progress, is likely to be defeated. Democrat Jerry Brown also looks like he will defeat Meg Whitman and be the next governor of California, even though Whitman set a record for spending the most private money on a political campaign.

Although the Koch brothers may have developed a potent arsenal in their war against progress, as we are seeing in California, not every election can be bought.


Related Posts
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Undermines Cap-and-Trade
The Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute's Climate Denial
The Kochs' Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation
The Kochs' Citizens for a Sound Economy Feigned Grassroots
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
Kochs' Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries War with the EPA
Supreme Court and the Koch Brothers Clandestine War
The Kochs' War on Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch Spending on Political Influence
Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
The Koch Brothers' No Climate Tax Pledge
Koch Destroys the Environment and Funds Climate Denial
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican Political Finance and the Midterm Elections
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
California's Proposition 23
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The New International System: The Role of Government
What is Wrong with the Right

The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Undermines Cap-and-Trade

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an astroturf front group started by oil billioniare David Koch and Richard Fink. AFP rallies and misinformation campaigns were pivotal in undermining cap-and-trade.

Because cap-and-trade makes corporations pay for the pollution they produce, Koch Industries is vehemently opposed to the any legislation including the measure.

Misinformation is the primary means used by the AFP to discredit the Democrat's legislative agenda. AFP has held at least eighty events targeting cap-and-trade legislation. Speakers for the group deliberately misled people into believing that even “back-yard barbecues and kitchen stoves“ would be taxed. The truth is the measure would only apply to large companies, neither small businesses nor private citizens would be directly subject to the energy tax.

AFP was also involved in the attacks that successfully brought down Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones. Like a wolf in sheeps clothing, the AFP went to Copenhagen last year and protested outside the UN conference on climate change. They mislead people into believing that their group was a champion of ordinary workers who would be hurt by environmentalists.

The AFP is part of the reason why we did not see energy and climate legislation in the last two years, it is also part of the reason why cap-and-trade is very unpopular. By staging protests, Americans for Prosperity have dissuaded Republicans who might otherwise have worked constructively with Obama.

The Kochs' dirty oil money funds Americans for Prosperity, which in turn fuels Republican obstructionism in Congress.


Related Posts
The Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute's Climate Denial
The Kochs' Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation
The Kochs' Citizens for a Sound Economy Feigned Grassroots
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
Kochs' Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries War with the EPA
The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats
Supreme Court and the Koch Brothers Clandestine War
The Kochs' War on Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch Spending on Political Influence
Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
The Koch Brothers' No Climate Tax Pledge
Koch Destroys the Environment and Funds Climate Denial
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican Political Finance and the Midterm Elections
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
California's Proposition 23
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The New International System: The Role of Government
What is Wrong with the Right

The Kochs' Citizens for a Sound Economy Feigned Grassroots

In 1990, the Kochs created a citizen group that called acid rain and other environmental problems “myths.” Despite being called Citizens for the Environment, the group had no citizen membership. The group was actually an offshoot of the Koch created Citizens for a Sound Economy.

In 1993, Citizens for a Sound Economy successfully defeated Clinton’s proposed B.T.U. tax on energy. During the 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some nine hundred thousand dollars to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans. In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy was accused of illegitimately supporting Bush’s reelection.

Citizens for a Sound Economy also supported the 2005 energy bill, which Hillary Clinton dubbed the Dick Cheney Lobbyist Energy Bill. It provided enormous subsidies and tax breaks for energy companies.

Citizens for a Sound Economy demonstrates that long before their success with the Tea Party, the Kochs were looking to create a grassroots movement. The Kochs have no interest in American citizens beyond putting them to work for their oil agenda.


Related Posts
The Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute's Climate Denial
The Kochs' Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Undermine Cap-and-Trade
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
Kochs' Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries War with the EPA
The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats
Supreme Court and the Koch Brothers Clandestine War
The Kochs' War on Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch Spending on Political Influence
Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
The Koch Brothers' No Climate Tax Pledge
Koch Destroys the Environment and Funds Climate Denial
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican Political Finance and the Midterm Elections
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
California's Proposition 23
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The New International System: The Role of Government
What is Wrong with the Right

The Kochs' Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation

In the mid-eighties, the Koch family foundations provided millions of dollars to George Mason University to set up a conservative think tank. Now known as the Mercatus Center, it fights environmental regulation, opposes clean energy legislation, and resists effort to curb industrial pollution.

Koch foundations have contributed more than thirty million dollars to George Mason University and $1,442,000 has been given directly to the Mercatus Center.

The Mercatus Center is ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington. Much of their energy is devoted to environmental deregulation and their primary weapon is misinformation. They have also worked to undermine the Obama Presidency. Shortly after the stimulus bill was passed, the Mercatus Center released a report falsely claiming that stimulus funds had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts. Although the author was eventually forced to recant, the damage was done.

The link between Mercantus and the Kochs is irrefutable. The founder of the Mercatus Center is Richard Fink, he is currently executive vice president of Koch Industries and the head of Koch Industries' lobbying operation in Washington. Fink also retains a seat on the board of directors at the Mercantus Center.

Although the Mercatus Center promotes itself as “the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems,” it is actually a conservative propaganda machine that serves the Kochs' corporate interests.


Related Posts
The Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute's Climate Denial
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Undermine Cap-and-Trade
The Kochs' Citizens for a Sound Economy Feigned Grassroots
Koch Industries War with the EPA
The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats
Supreme Court and the Koch Brothers Clandestine War
The Kochs' War on Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch Spending on Political Influence
Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Kochs' Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
The Koch Brothers' No Climate Tax Pledge
Koch Destroys the Environment and Funds Climate Denial
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican Political Finance and the Midterm Elections
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
California's Proposition 23
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The New International System: The Role of Government
What is Wrong with the Right