Wednesday, May 25, 2016

This Is What Insurgency Looks Like | Labor Network for Sustainability

This Is What Insurgency Looks Like | Labor Network for Sustainability
Posted by at

A grid of DERs: DOE program aims for 100% solar penetration on the distribution system

A grid of DERs: DOE program aims for 100% solar penetration on the distribution system
Posted by at

Friday, May 20, 2016

Analysis: Only five years left before 1.5C carbon budget is blown - Carbon Brief

Analysis: Only five years left before 1.5C carbon budget is blown - Carbon Brief
Posted by at

Thursday, May 19, 2016

What Can be Done #9: Embrace a real vision for the future, here's one of several options: via Labor Network for Sustainability: Climate, Jobs, and Justice: A plan for a just transition to a climate-safe economy | Labor Network for Sustainability

Climate, Jobs, and Justice: A plan for a just transition to a climate-safe economy | Labor Network for Sustainability
Posted by at

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

What Can be Done? #8: Learn how to sing. Defenders of the earth sing against the auctioning off of public lands for private (and toxic) interests

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Dirty coal: Get to know your local coal CEOs, and their paychecks: via STL Post-Dispatch: Pay for performance? Coal CEOs get bonuses as companies lose billions



Posted by at

Friday, May 13, 2016

What can be done #7: Get thousands of committed earth defenders and shut down a massive strip coal mine in Germany

I said 'wow' when I saw this image.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Thursday, May 12, 2016

What Can Be Done #6: Get 100s of committed kayaktivists to blockade a coal export terminal (port)


Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Virtual Climate Change Conference at UCSB

Main page for 2016 EHI conference
Posted by at

What Can be Done? #5: Take ground when people are auctioning off the earth for destruction, and hold it. (And learn some great songs. And maybe some creative acrobatic maneuvers. And bring a siren noise-maker.

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Tar Sands/Dirty Oil: Canada Fire Deals Staggering Blow to Oil Sands Industry and Economy

I love how business writers use phrases like "the health of the oil sands"



Canada Fire Deals Staggering Blow to Oil Sands Industry and Economy
Posted by at

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

What Can be Done #4: Demand that your university represent student consensus on climate change, fossil fuel divestment: (via Stanford): ASSU Execs call for Board to represent student consensus on fossil fuel divestment

ASSU Execs call for Board to represent student consensus on fossil fuel divestment
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

What Can be Done #3: Disrupt Business as Usual (I know we've got more than 3, but since I just started keeping count, here's official #3), thanks to these great earth defenders in the Northeast

Here's another good video of that action - "excuse me, I'm in the middle of an interruption."
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Dirty coal, criminal coal: More on Peabody trying to deny global warming in Minnesota Court Case (spoiler: They lost). Via The Guardian: Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost | Dana Nuccitelli

Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost | Dana Nuccitelli  (see my original post, asking why Washington University in St. Louis would partner with a science-denying entity like Peabody Coal):

 Among other absurdities, here's what Peabody's 'experts' tried to argue:
The coal company called forth witnesses that represented the fringe 2–3% of experts who reject the consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, while their opposition invited witnesses like Andrew Dessler and John Abraham who represent the 97% expert consensus. John Abraham previously summarized the proceedings and ruling in favor of the higher carbon cost estimates, but it’s worth delving into some of the details of the climate science and economics arguments to see why the judge ruled against the coal company and its contrarian witnesses. The losing case from the coal company witnesses (rebutted by John Abraham here and here) can be summarized as follows:
  • Warming has been less than models predicted [False]
  • This means the climate’s sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is low [False]
  • Carbon pollution is great anyway and should be subsidized, not taxed [False]
In between these primary arguments, Peabody coal’s witnesses made a variety of false and/or conspiratorial statements, dredging up numerous long-debunked climate myths.

 Read the rest of the story: Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost | Dana Nuccitelli 
Posted by at

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

CAMPAIGN 2016: Trump promises he will reopen coal mines. He probably can't

CAMPAIGN 2016: Trump promises he will reopen coal mines. He probably can't
Posted by at

Sunday, May 8, 2016

I have a lot of respect for underground coal miners, but this speech leaves one speechless: For the historical record: Trump's speech in Charleston WV.

They played John Denver "Take me Home, Country Roads" (Denver must be rolling in his grave, since he was an anti-oil, environmental activist)... Trump took the stage.  After being given an endorsement by the West Virginia Coal Association, he was presented with a hard hat – which he briefly donned and then took off, at which point he begin riffing on whether his hair was still in place, which took him down the road of comparing the regulatory control of hairspray to the regulatory control of the coal industry 

 He did acknowledge that  'Sanders knows we're being ripped off on trade, but I knew it a long time before he did.'  And he says the right things on trade, hits all the buttons about people being underpaid, says the education system needs improvement.  

 And, all of this is not to say that Hillary's message is much of an alternative, given complicity with past policies that have put people out of work and a less than robust vision of how we might seek a just transition for places like coal country going forward..but, for another day.

 But then Trump stokes up the corrosive hatred of the scapegoat – blame the Mexicans, blame the Chinese, blame Obama, blame Clinton (well, for NAFTA, yes), but, you get the picture.  For the record, here's the hairspray part (those younger than me will not remember that the battle over the ozone layer was first fought around aerosols, back in the 1970s.  Trump appears to dismiss that battle as much as he is now dismissive of the struggle against global warming):

 http://www.c-span.org/video/?409094-1/donald-trump-addresses-supporters-charleston-west-virginia

 From the C-Span transcript, you cannot make this stuff up:

MR. TRUMP: NICE. NICE. GOT TO PUT IT ON, RIGHT? THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. THAT IS GREAT. MY HAIR LOOK OK? GIVE ME A LITTLE SPRAY. YOUR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE HAIRSPRAY ANYMORE BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE ZOZONE. YOU ME TO TELL ME, BECAUSE YOU KNOW HAIRSPRAY IS NOT LIKE IT USED TO BE. IT USED TO BE REAL GOOD. WHAT I PUT ON IT HELMET. IT REALLY IS MINE, RIGHT? LOOK AT THIS, RIGHT? MY HAIR. GIVE ME A MIRROR. IN THE OLD DAYS HE PUT THE HAIRSPRAY ON, IT WAS GOOD. TODAY YOU PUT THE HAIRSPRAY ON, IT IS GOOD FOR 12 MINUTES, RIGHT? YOU KNOW THEY SAY YOU CANNOT -- WAIT A MINUTE, SO I TAKE HAIRSPRAY AND IF I SPRAY IT IN MY APARTMENT WHICH IS ALL SEALED, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT AFFECTS THE OZONE PLAYER? -- OZONE LAYER? NO WAY, FOLKS. NO WAY. THAT IS LIKE A LOT OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS YOU PEOPLE HAVE IN THE MINES. SO, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOLKS. BELIEVE ME IT IS AN HONOR. I GET ELECTED YOU ARE GOING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN FAST, AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE BACK TO BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE. AND HONESTLY THAT BEAT -- MEANS ALL KINDS OF ENERGY. WE NEVER WANT TO BE AN A POSITION LIKE WE WERE IN BEFORE WHERE WE WERE LITERALLY CONTROLLED BY PEOPLE, OPEC AND OTHERS, BUT WE WERE LITERALLY, IN THE HANDS OF THESE PEOPLE. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, FOLKS. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. SO, CONGRATULATIONS. NOW I WANT -- WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS SAVE YOUR VOTE. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE ANYMORE. SAVE YOUR VOTE FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION COULD FORGET THIS ONE. THE PRIMARY IS GONE. SAVE YOUR VOTE FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER AND WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING AND THEN YOU WILL SHOW ME SOMETHING, OK? LOOK AT THAT. OK, THANK YOU. SO, WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TRADE AND JOBS. WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BORDERS. ARE YOU BIG BORDER PEOPLE? THE WALL. EVERYBODY WANTS THE WALL. WE WILL HAVE TO WALL. WE WILL HAVE THE WALL. THAT'S VERY NICE. WE WILL BUILD THAT WALL.

Updated 5/9/16: Meanwhile, outside the venue, this unfolded:
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 6, 2016

Global Warming, Global Signs: (Via Energy Mix): Climate Hawk Mourns for Fort Mac…and Many Others | The Energy Mix

Reflections on the devastation of Fort McMurray, Canada, and the global connections to impacts of planetary warming elsewhere, by David Marshall, via Energy Mix: Climate Hawk Mourns for Fort Mac…and Many Others | The Energy Mix

"Nobody deserves to have their lives upended by climate disasters. Nobody. And most certainly not those working to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. But the world is slowly, steadily careening out of control. Tragically, the average Canadian contributes more to climate change than just about anybody else in the world, and Fort McMurray is the epicentre of one of our most unsustainable industries. I hope that this is—finally—the time where we heed the unmistakable warning signs that the path we are on is devastating people and communities and species and ecosystems. As Albertans muster the courage to rebuild, and all Canadians do what we can to help, let’s realize that a different, better path is right there to be taken."
Climate Hawk Mourns for Fort Mac…and Many Others | The Energy Mix
Posted by at

Dirty Coal: There will never be clean coal, and to make people think there will you have to do a lot of cheating and lying: U.S. Probing Costs of Southern's $6.7 Billion Clean Coal Plant

There will never be clean coal.  This model is not only not viable (economically, technologically, or socially), it clearly requires corruption to even make people think it might work.  Welcome to the world of dirty coal, a huge distraction and financial waste given the radical shift away from fossil fuels that we need now.

 U.S. Probing Costs of Southern's $6.7 Billion Clean Coal Plant
Posted by at

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Ultraman: Using the power of the sun to defend the earth from destructive monsters....


Posted by at

Dirty Coal: If our students cite blogs and websites, we take points off, 'those aren't academic sources.' Yet this is what Peabody takes to court to fight climate science: Via, The Guardian: Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case | John Abraham

Updated 9/19/18:  Washington University is still taking money from Peabody, despite the fact that Peabody fights tooth and nail against climate science, public health, and effective policy change like the Clean Power Act.  

Updated 5/11/16: More details on Peabody's science-denial tactics in court (see here, and below).  Once again, the main question: Should an industry with the ethics of the tobacco industry and the arguments of – well, I'd hate to insult two-year olds, but you get the point – be a partner with Washington University, which claims to be a leader in public health, medicine, and science?

 Reading John Abraham's story about testifying on climate science in a Minnesota court case brought by Peabody....their scientific experts cited blogs to try to contest the real science of global warming. 

 I would laugh, but this is serious criminality.  Even worse, Peabody is still a major partner of Washington University.  

 In the late 1990s the Weidenbaum Center here at WUSTL greenwashed for the oil industry and obstructed climate science while they were on the payroll of Exxon.  Now in the late 2010s, we are still greenwashing for the coal and oil industry and obstructing science alongside our partners in the coal industry, especially the utility monopoly Ameren, and their main coal supplier, Peabody.  Greg Boyce, ex-CEO of Peabody, sits on the WUSTL board of trustees.  Peabody is one of the donors of a few million dollars for so-called 'clean coal' research.  And, like Exxon, Peabody has deliberately misrepresented scientific knowledge in a bid to stay alive, and has paid the university money to participate in this strategy.  This seems pretty criminal to me. It certainly erodes the integrity of science and public trust in the university.

A side note on clean coal funding, today's version of #ExxonKnew: That 'clean coal' money mostly went to pay and contractually oblige the university to use the phrase 'clean coal.'  Peabody spent a lot more money during those same years for lobbying against climate science in DC, while Washington University was staging major events to let coal industry representatives lie to the public about 'clean' and 'green' coal.  No major discovery has come of 'clean coal' research, and no major discovery ever will. There will never be clean coal, but there is a really nice green brochure proclaiming its possibility (right):  
I'm not sure if WUSTL was contractually obliged to paint the clean coal website all in green or not. But it is greenwashing to the point of comedic parody.  The US government in fact pays for most of the actual research, none of which approximates 'clean coal' research.  Washington University also often fails to speak clearly about climate change, and some units here provide platforms for climate science obstructionism.  While we proclaim to be a national leader of sustainability, we invest (or appear to have invested) via hedge fund vehicles - not sure if we are laundering capital through for others or not – in fracking Southern Illinois and drilling for tight oil and gas elsewhere, both very dirty processes. We say absolutely nothing, perhaps under orders of the dinosaurs on the Board of Trustees, about Ameren's plan to keep burning up to 60% coal by 2034.  And despite the fact that Ameren also gave WUSTL money to use the phrase clean coal, I overheard an Ameren exec at a recent sustainability conference saying, "we're not even considering that [clean coal] technology."  Of course they aren't because it does not exist and never will.  I am not sure if these people have children, or if they love them, but all of this is deeply troubling, ethically, environmentally, and in terms of human health and well-being.

In addition to that dirty coal money, Peabody in 2013 paid $372,000 to WUSTL for some sort of tuition for somebody.  Irony or parody in an institution of higher learning?  Embrace science on one end, fight science on the other?  Who knows? There is not enough transparency about the exchange of money.  The erosion of public trust proceeds apace.  The board of trustees and those who do their bidding are at the helm of something quite disturbing.  St Louis is a company town, and most folks are too scared (or dependent) to say anything.  Even our NPR station is on the Ameren and Monsanto payroll.

WUSTL 2013 990 Form. Easy to find on the web.  That same year WUSTL paid Ameren $22,000,000 for the electricity produced by burning mostly dirty coal provided by Peabody Energy.  Our campus is 100% Ameren grid dependent, and Ameren burns about 70-80% coal. WUSTL trustees also sit on Ameren's board –- it's a circus of cronyism tied to dirty industries.
Now Peabody once again demonstrates what it truly is - a destructive behemoth that fights science and public health.  Should any self-respecting university that calls itself a bastion of science and public health be partnered with such a thing? The students do not think so.  In 2014, a hardy band of WUSTL students staged a sit-in to bring these issues to light and call the board of trustees to account for its complicity in community destruction.

So on it goes, read for yourself, you decide: Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case | John Abraham:
"We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example). Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are: 

22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct.
23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range.
47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.

 And, updated 5/11/16, here's what Peabody's 'experts' tried to argue, all False (via Dana Nuccitelli, The Guardian):
 The losing case from the coal company witnesses (rebutted by John Abraham here and here) can be summarized as follows:
  • Warming has been less than models predicted [False]
  • This means the climate’s sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is low [False]
  • Carbon pollution is great anyway and should be subsidized, not taxed [False]
In between these primary arguments, Peabody coal’s witnesses made a variety of false and/or conspiratorial statements, dredging up numerous long-debunked climate myths.
Posted by at

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Thanks to a student for this one: Remembering the BP spill, and how sorry Tony Haywood was about it

Posted by at

Dirty Money and Fossil Knowledge: #ExxonKnew (and Exxon gave money to Washington University). Was this part of a broader illegal practice? Should we disavow this history?

Original post: May 4, 2016.
Latest update (below): June 6, 2017

 So, I innocently clicked on this tweet yesterday, out of curiosity:
And, scrolling through the list was not surprised to find a Washington University connection, the Weidenbaum Center, formerly known as the Center for the Study of American Business.  Murray Weidenbaum (d. 2014) was a Reagan advisor and professor here, and apparently this center was the nucleus of free-market 'research' for a long time.  What I should also have already known is that there is some connection to the #ExxonKnew case (see Scientific American summary here), as I quickly discovered when I started sniffing around. (Here's update, as of 5/9/16 from Politico).

S. Fred Singer was an early denier of the dangers of smoking, and went on to become one of the chief anti-climate science actors, as detailed at length in Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt.  You have to hand it to him, at 91 years old he even went to Paris with the Heartland Institute to stage an anti-COP meeting in 2015.  His task was to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion, as was that of all of these actors.  And, they did so at a center at WUSTL that was moving money tax-free (501 (c)(3)) and as below, a lot of that money appears to have come from Exxon, hence the subpoeana referenced above (stay tuned for more on tax-free money laundering).




Why would it be illegal?  Well, this is the subpoena submitted by the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands.  California, New York, and several other states are also reportedly preparing similar cases.  Here's what they wrote to Exxon when they requested these documents:
http://media.washtimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/misc/2016/05/03/U_S__subpoena_file.pdf

 "Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act".  This is basically what it means to perpetuate science obstructionism, which is what Washington University and Exxon were doing when they published this kind of work.  

 So, I tried to find out if in fact Exxon had given money to the Center (pretty sure they had since most of the reporting on the ExxonKnew case has already linked to the Weidenbaum Center) and...
Updated May 9, 2016:  Well I guess I was just being blissfully naïve about Murray Weidenbaum, because the Union of Concerned Scientists was already calling him out (and detailing Exxon funding of his climate science distortion, denial, and obstructionism, as early as 2007).  
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

 In 2007 Exxon continued to fund Washington University, in particular, its global conference on energy.  I'm pretty sure they got what they paid for.

 So, decide for yourself.  Here's how the center represented itself, as a place for "unbiased" research....

You can read and decide if this is 'unbiased' work.  Below is the list of articles published during the hey-day of climate science denialism at WUSTL.  Well, I take that back.  We are still an anti-public health, anti-climate science, pro-fossil fuel university, but this mission is now carried out through slightly more subtle greenwashing tactics tied to our way of (not) acting on 'sustainability' and using the phrase 'clean coal' much like Donald Trump.  More on that later.

Global Climate Change  (Source:  https://wc.wustl.edu/csab)

Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming, Indur M. Goklany, Policy Study 157, August 2000
Comments on "Climate Change Impacts on the United States" Overview Section, Kenneth W. Chilton, Public Comment, August 11, 2000
What Do We Know about Human Influence on Climate Change? S. Fred Singer, Contemporary Issues Series 96, November 1999
A Current View of the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, William H. Lash III, Contemporary Issues Series 94,August 1999
Hearing on Global Climate Change, William H. Lash III, May 1999
Statement before the U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation, and the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, May 20, 1999
Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat, Patrick J. Michaels, Policy Study 146,June 1998
Designing Global Climate Policy: Efficient Markets versus Political Markets, Jonathan Baert Weiner, Policy Study 143, December 1997
Framing A Coherent Climate Change Policy, Frederick H. Rueter, Policy Study 141, October 1997 

 Updated March 2, 2017.  They must be contractually obliged to keep those climate science denialist publications on their websites.  But in case they ever decide to take them down, here's the screenshot (3/2/2017):

Updated March 13, 2017:  Story breaks that DOS head Rex Tillerson was using an alias while CEO at Exxon:  Here's Bloomberg.  Here's Buzzfeed. 

Updated June 6, 2017:  NY Atty General investigation reveals probable accounting malfeasance at Exxon to misrepresent climate risks to investors.

Updated October 21, 2019: NY AG case going to court against Exxon for fraud:  Story: Inside Climate News; NYT & case history here
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Dirty Coal, Dirty Air: (Via, The Root): Asthma Rates Among Blacks Will Take Your Breath Away

Asthma Rates Among Blacks Will Take Your Breath Away
"The statistics are alarming. The Environmental Protection Agency reported (pdf) almost a 50 percent increase in asthma rates among black children from 2001 to 2009—that translates to about 1 out of every 6 black children. While it’s easy to blame this spike on high pollen counts during these spring and early-summer months, the real reason for the rise in asthma cases is the increased levels of ozone caused by climate change. The higher ozone levels exacerbate asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments that disproportionately harm African Americans, leading to increased hospitalizations and deaths 
Why are these spikes so prevalent in communities of color, you ask? We need look no further than the location of coal-fired power plants that surround and are sometimes embedded in poor and urban communities. It is estimated that 68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles (pdf) of a coal-fired power plant—a distance that can bring the most harmful effects from these toxic emissions. The high levels of ozone, nitrogen, oxides, acidic aerosol and fine particles in the air in our communities are known to trigger asthma attacks or cause children to develop asthma(pdf)."
Read the whole article here.



And, good resource:  2002 Report on Coal-Fired Power Plants and Environmental Racism.
Posted by at

WUSTL's relationship to the coal industry and to Ameren, our polluting utility is a "serious hindrance to our campus' environmental progress"

Posted by at

Monday, May 2, 2016

Missouri, Illinois among top coal burners as use falls faster elsewhere

Missouri, Illinois among top coal burners as use falls faster elsewhere
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)