Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf Days From Breaking Off
By Andy Rowell
Any day now we will truly witness climate change in action. Within days at worst, maybe weeks at best, scientists predict that a huge section of the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica will break off into the ocean, in what is called a major "calving" event.
The size of the U.S. state of Delaware or the paradise island of Bali, the iceberg will be one of the biggest ever seen.
For months, scientists have been watching the growing crack spread some 175 kilometers (approx. 108 miles) along the ice sheet with growing alarm. Now just 13 kilometers (8 miles) remain, keeping this chunk of ice attached to the main ice shelf.
In glacial terms, it is literally hanging by a thread.
"It's keeping us all on tenterhooks," Andrew Fleming of the British Antarctic Survey told Reuters earlier this week. "It feels like a niggling tooth" of a child as it comes loose.
According to scientists from Project MIDAS, a UK-based Antarctic research project investigating the effects of a warming climate on the Larsen C ice shelf: "When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10 percent of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula."
As the scientists pointed out, as the ice-shelf is already floating, an iceberg breaking off does not directly impact sea level rise, although "the ice shelf is holding back land-based glaciers, which have a large sea level potential."
So what should we name this vast new iceberg when it carves? The folks at 350.org have come up with a novel idea: Let's name it #ExxonKnew, because "50 years after learning the truth about climate change, Exxon's climate denial is having increasingly devastating consequences."
350.org outlines that the imminent calving of the vast iceberg is "one of the most dramatic displays of the destruction Exxon and their peers in the fossil fuel industry have unleashed upon the planet. Exxon's climate denial created this iceberg. It should be named after it too."
Ironically, way back in the early sixties, a division of the company that would become Exxon ran a full page ad in Life Magazine bragging about their ability to melt glaciers.
Later that decade, by 1968, a report for the American Petroleum Institute, on which Exxon is a prominent member, warned of the dangers of climate change and the risks to sea level rise if Antarctic glaciers melted.
Nine years later in 1977, Exxon's leaders were told directly by a senior company scientist, James F. Black, about the looming climate crisis. "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," he told Exxon's Management Committee.
A year later in 1978, one of the most seminal works on Antarctica was published by John Mercer from the Institute of Polar Studies, who concluded: "One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward."
But Exxon ignored the warning signs and tried to discredit the science. Instead of taking responsible action, the company employed a decades-long deceitful and disingenuous climate denial campaign that has been well documented by scholars and activists alike.
The scientists and executives from Exxon deliberately followed the tobacco industry's tactics of sowing doubt about evidence. Exxon set out to exaggerate the uncertainty in the science and twist the facts.
In October 1997, decades after the company was first warned about climate change, the head of Exxon at the time, Lee "Iron Ass" Raymond, delivered a speech to the Fifteenth World Petroleum Congress in China.
As Steve Coll recalled in his book "Private Empire," Raymond "devoted thirty-three paragraphs of his seventy-eight-paragraph speech to the argument that evidence about manmade climate change was an illusion."
Months later, Exxon helped create a task-force working with the American Petroleum Institute: "Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science" and when public "recognition of uncertainty becomes part of "unconventional wisdom." Where Big Tobacco led, Exxon followed in promoting uncertainty.
Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon donated $16 million to numerous right-wing and libertarian think tanks to manufacture uncertainty about climate change.
In 2006, nearly three decades after Exxon was first warned about climate change, the British Royal Society wrote to Exxon asking the company to stop funding organizations which feature information "on their websites that misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change."
But Exxon has continued funding climate denial and Antarctica continues to warm.
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."