200+ Groups Demand Senate Kill Bill That Would Pour 'Fuel on Fire of Climate Crisis'
By Julia Conley
More than 200 national climate action groups on Thursday demanded that the Senate stop the passage of a bill that would serve to keep both Europe and the U.S. dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come — as millions around the world have marched in recent months to demand that governments rapidly shift away from carbon-emitting energy sources.
Passed by the House in March, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019 (S. 704) would provide billions of dollars in support for natural gas infrastructure projects, propping up fossil fuel industries and leading to fracking projects in the U.S. — undercutting the goals of climate campaigners who are demanding that all industrialized countries move toward renewable energy systems.
S. 704 would lock "both the United States and Europe into decades of continued fossil fuel dependence under the guise of national security," said Food and Water Watch, which organized the letter signed by groups including the Sunrise Movement, 350.org, Greenpeace, Oil Change U.S. and Friends of the Earth.
"At a time when we should be leading the global mission to rapidly quit fossil fuels, the notion of seeking new and deeper fossil fuel codependence between America and Europe is patently absurd," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said.
The legislation is now under consideration in the Senate, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) sponsoring the bill along with five bipartisan co-sponsors.
Murphy and other proponents say the bill would counter Russia's influence over energy production in Eastern Europe, but climate campaigners warned against using the fossil fuel sector, which releases millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, to push Russian President Vladimir Putin out of European energy markets is a short-sighted solution.
"This bill would undermine its own stated cause," said Collin Rees, senior campaigner at Oil Change U.S., in a statement. "Using fossil fuels for energy diplomacy increases global tensions and decreases our national security by pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Research clearly shows that existing fossil fuel development — including gas development — contains more carbon than the world can afford to burn."
While U.S. funding of fossil fuel projects in Europe may drive down Russian influence for now, the groups wrote, it would also exacerbate water scarcity, food shortages, and rising sea levels — all "geopolitical threats" in their own right.
Contrary to its name, they added, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act would do little to promote the safety and security of the U.S.
"The underlying logic of this legislation is deeply flawed," the letter reads. "Far from securing a more stable world, expanding exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe will lead to a more unstable world."
"Whatever the geopolitics, sending more deadly fossil fuels to Europe or any other part of the world is not the answer," said Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Natural gas is fool's gold and will inevitably lead to further destabilization of any region that relies upon it."
The legislation is being pushed just as children and adults around the world are months into a global climate action campaign which has begun to make strides in the European Union and Great Britain. Eight European countries this week unveiled a proposal to spend a quarter of the EU's budget to combat climate change, fulfilling a commitment European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker made to climate action leader Greta Thunberg earlier this year, while the U.K. Parliament declared a climate emergency last week under pressure from the international movement Extinction Rebellion.
"Climate science is clear: We must begin an aggressive global transition to clean, renewable energy now," said Hauter. "For the Senate to promote the opposite would be a clear abdication of moral duty to current and future generations in this country and every country."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›