Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

By Alleen Brown

Under orders from President Trump, the Army Corps of Engineers on Feb. 7 approved a final easement allowing Energy Transfer Partners to drill under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Construction has re-started, and lawyers for the company said it could take as little as 30 days for oil to flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

By Nika Knight

Experiments involving genetically engineered animals have nearly tripled in Germany in the past 10 years, driven by a burgeoning global industry that involves inventing and patenting genetically altered species for scientific research, says a new study commissioned by Germany's Green Party and conducted by the research group Testbiotech.

A GMO mouse with a gene related to hair growth removed from its genome, at left, next to a mouse with an unaltered genome.Wikimedia Commons

"The massive increase in animal testing in the genetics field is unacceptable," Nicole Maisch, the Green Party's parliamentary spokesperson for the protection of animals and consumer policy, told the newspaper Der Westen.

"Particularly when the experiments' usefulness from a medical standpoint is extremely questionable or when the trials have revealed themselves to be unsuccessful," Maisch said, "we must not allow any more animals to be tortured."

The study, which was released Wednesday and shared with Süddeutsche Zeitung and newspapers owned by Germany's Funke Mediengruppe, found that nearly 950,000 animals were subjected to experiments in Germany in 2013 alone and a full third of those involved genetically modified animals.

The genomes of mice, rats and fish are being tinkered with the most, reports Süddeutsche Zeitung, but rabbits and pigs are popular choices, too.

Moreover, Süddeutsche Zeitung notes:

In contrast to conventional animal testing, the research on genetically manipulated animals is especially deadly, says Silke Strittmatter of the organization Doctors Against Animal Experiments: "We can safely assume that up to 54 animals die for the creation of a single genetically modified animal." To achieve the desired outcome, scientists must experiment with many variations, which in many cases involves breeding multiple generations and then killing them. In this fashion, the number of genetically altered animals is increasing, despite the fact that in the last two years, for the first time the number of animals used for traditional experimental trials has fallen.

A race to patent and profit from genetically modified species is driving the growing global market for such creatures, observes the German newspaper: "Researchers patent altered animals, such as "knockout mice" and sign license deals with corporations, which in turn aggressively market the animals to laboratories—as "custom-manipulated rodents," for example."

The newspaper continues:

In the USA, biotech corporations market patented animals aggressively. [Study author Christoph] Then describes a downright "price war." Patents for new genetic engineering techniques then lead to more animal trials. In recent years, patent applications were even submitted for genetically modified primates and great apes—and some of those were approved. It is for this reason that the speaker for the Green faction on genetic engineering, Harald Ebner, is calling for a Europe-wide ban on patents on living things.

Ebner also told Süddeutsche Zeitung that he fears so-called "free trade" deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will lead to the worldwide dispersal of products from genetically modified animals.

The newspaper observes that "meat and other products from genetically modified animals cannot be sold in Germany. [...] In other countries, however, among other things scientists are experimenting with altering the ingredients of milk by changing the genes of cows. For such experiments, embryos must be genetically altered and then implanted in a surrogate. The Testbiotech study notes that these experiments often involve pain and suffering, as such laboratory animals are frequently killed in order to remove cells or the genetically modified embryo."

It seems other countries have reason to worry, as the U.S. government continues to fight for pro-GMO legislation. Indeed, when President Obama last week signed into law a corporate-friendly GMO labeling bill, he "scratched out the laws of Vermont, Connecticut and Maine that required the labeling of genetically engineered foods," reports AlterNet.

"He also nullified the [GMO] seed labeling laws in Vermont and Virginia that allowed farmers to choose what seeds they wanted to buy and plant," the progressive outlet observes, adding that "for good measure he preempted Alaska's law requiring the labeling of any [GMO] fish or fish product, passed to protect the state's vital fisheries from contamination by recently approved genetically engineered salmon."

To truly get the most out of life, a person needs to be able to get a good night's sleep, which has led many to wonder if there is anything behind the idea of CBD for sleep improvement.

Read More Show Less

Trending

By Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth Action

The same day TransCanada sued the U.S. government for $15 billion, the Democratic Party's platform drafting committee met in Missouri. Between the two, there is a lesson to be learned about free trade and the climate crisis.

The lawsuit was the anticipated result of President Obama rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.Using a notorious provision in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Canadian oil giant is hoping to claim $15 billion in lost future profits by dragging the U.S. before an international tribunal. These sorts of extra-judicial forums, where corporations can sue governments for enforcing their own laws, are a hallmark of established free trade deals like NAFTA and looming ones like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Forty environmental groups signed a letter urging Congress to reject the TransPacific Partnership. Dylan Petrohilos / Think Progress

The meeting in Missouri was to finalize a draft of the 2016 Democratic Party platform, a usually sleepy and symbolic process that this year has exploded into a proxy fight between presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Pipelines like Keystone XL and free trade writ large were both on the agenda—and the votes cast reflect a growing divide between the party establishment and the grassroots.

Within hours of TransCanada filing its lawsuit under NAFTA, the platform committee had the chance to officially oppose the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, a Pacific Rim trade deal that would allow hundreds of new fossil fuel companies access to provisions similar to those used by TransCanada. The motion was rejected. Despite both candidates being on record opposing the current TPP, the motion was rejected in a 10-5 vote. It was supported by appointees from Sanders and opposed by appointees from Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Compromise language was offered instead, calling for trade deals that protect workers and the environment without mentioning the TPP by name.

Talking about responsible trade but refusing to be clear about the TPP isn't a good look, for the DNC or anyone else. If the TPP and its European counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, were both enacted, it would radically expand the power of fossil fuel companies to sue the U.S. for laws and regulations that hurt their expected future profits. The power to launch lawsuits like TransCanada's would be put on steroids and everything fromlocal fracking bans to renewable energy mandates could be litigated in trade tribunals run overwhelmingly by corporate lawyers.

Besides missing the boat on trade, the committee managed a few other favors for the TransCanadas of the world. Jane Kleeb, the founder of Bold Nebraska and the newly elected Chair of Nebraska Democrats, supported a motion calling for ending the use of eminent domain in support of fossil fuel projects. It was unceremoniously voted down. Another rejected motion was an endorsement of the so-called "climate test," the principle that infrastructure and other projects shouldn't be approved if they worsen carbon emissions. Applying this standard was what led President Obama to reject Keystone XL in the first place.

In fact, Friday turned out to be a bad night for serious climate policy all around. Motions pushed by Sanders's appointee Bill McKibben supporting a carbon tax and a national frackingban were both rejected. So too was a motion to keep fossil fuels in the ground by ending new leasing on our public lands and waters.

Even the ambitious energy target supported by both Clinton and Sanders—100 percent clean energy by 2050—wasn't an unqualified success. The language is vague enough that it could include everything from wind and solar to dangerous false solutions like biomass, carbon capture and sequestration and nukes.

The concern about what exactly counts as clean energy isn't unfounded. If Bill McKibben was chosen by Sanders as a progressive voice on climate, his alter ego appointed by Clinton is Carol Browner, a one-time Environmental Protection Agency administrator who splits her time these days between professional lobbying and pro-nuclear advocacy.

The good news is that Missouri isn't the end. The platform still needs to be approved by the full platform committee next month in Orlando and after that by the full convention in Philadelphia. When it comes to pushing back on trade and climate, there are still two more shots.

As philosopher Dr. Cornel West, another Sen. Sanders appointee, said as he abstained from the final vote, "Take it to the next stage."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Oakland Bans Coal Exports, Huge Win for Local Residents

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

'Three Amigos' Vow to Get Half Their Electricity From Clean Power by 2025

DNC Platform Calls for Fossil Fuel Investigations, 100% Renewable Energy

By Molly Dorozenski

At a time when Secretary Clinton should be strengthening her progressive policies, it does not make sense to pick an industry insider who supports fracking to lead her transition team. Unfortunately, that's the exact move that Clinton made this week in appointing former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to that post.

A flare burns near a hydraulic fracturing drilling tower in rural Weld County in northern Colorado, the most intensively fracked area in the U.S. Image of fracking site in Colorado: © Les Stone / Greenpeace

Though not an official lobbyist, Salazar took a job as partner at WilmerHale after leaving the Department of the Interior in 2013, a law and lobbying firm working on energy and environmental issues amongst other things. Salazar's track record has illustrated time and time again that he is on the side of big industry, and not the people. He is pro-Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), pro-fracking and pro-Keystone XL pipeline. If Clinton plans to effectively tackle climate change, the last thing her team needs is a fossil fuel industry friend like Salazar.

A NASA study released this week identified fracking as responsible for a methane "hot spot" in the Four Corners region of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, the largest concentration of the potent greenhouse gas in the country. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet Salazar has actually made the statement that "there's not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone." The truth is fracking is devastating his home state of Colorado, yet he has chosen to side with industry.

Most recently, Salazar came out in opposition to ballot initiatives to restrict fracking in Colorado. Communities throughout the state spent months collecting signatures for the ballot measures that would establish setbacks for drilling operations from schools and hospitals and empower communities to vote on fracking. Organizers on the ground were fought tooth and nail by the industry, which spent more $75 million since 2014 on PR firms and front groups intent on defeating the ballot measures. Earlier this month, people power overcame its first major hurdle by gathering enough signatures to submit the ballot measures to the Colorado Secretary of State. The office is now officially counting the signatures for qualification for the ballot in November.

A massive fight remains for Colorado activists in the months leading into November. As more oil and gas money flows into the state to mislead voters on the ballot initiatives, it is more important than ever for Secretary Clinton to pick the side of the people over the industry and its mouthpieces. Clinton has indicated support for local control over fracking, but picking an industry insider like Salazar who is fighting against the people's will sends the wrong message about which side she is truly on.

If Secretary Clinton wants to be the environmental leader that she claims to be in campaign speeches, she has to put the people before industry insiders.

Molly Dorozenski is the campaign director for Greenpeace Democracy.

Trending

"I'm thrilled to announce my running mate, @TimKaine," presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton tweeted at 8:11 p.m. Friday.

Though the news was not a surprise, as Kaine has long been known as a likely choice, Clinton's pick stirred immediate reaction among the environmental movement. The Virginia senator supports fracking and offshore oil drilling, but was an early opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline.

350 Action Director May Boeve shared her concern of Clinton's vice presidential pick.

"Tim Kaine won't energize the climate base, so it's up to Hillary to start staking out some clearer positions," Boeve said. "Kaine was with us on Keystone XL, but against us on offshore drilling and fracking. This November, climate activists, young people, and progressives will turn up at the polls for candidates who say the magic words, 'keep it in the ground.' If Democrats want to drive turnout, it's time to come out more clearly against drilling, fracking and new fossil fuel infrastructure."

On Sunday at 1 p.m., one day before the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia, thousands of people will take part in the March for a Clean Energy Revolution calling for a ban on fracking. The march is organized by Americans Against Fracking and Pennsylvanians Against Fracking and backed by more than 900 organizations across all 50 states.

"Hillary Clinton's vice president and entire administration should be committed 100 percent to combating catastrophic climate change by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, supporting renewable energy and protecting our democracy from corporate influence," Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard said.

"It's clear from the polling that Secretary Clinton needs the progressive wing to vote in force if she's going to win in November, so Tim Kaine must show himself from the start that he'll use his office to be a climate champion," Leonard continued.

"He showed he could do this when he became an early opponent of the Keystone Pipeline, but Kaine's opposition to regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and his support for natural gas exports and pipelines, prove he still has a long way to go. Clinton's positions on fracking may have progressed during her candidacy, but the climate movement will continue to push her and her running mate until they pledge to keep all fossil fuels in the ground."

League of Conservation Voters

Sierra Club's Executive Director Michael Brune feels "Secretary Clinton's selection of Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate completes the strongest environmental ticket we've ever seen." When comparing Clinton's campaign to Donald Trumps, Brune said, "The Democratic ticket is in sharp contrast to the Republican's, which features not one but two climate deniers, a first in American history. The Trump-Pence regime would be the only world leaders to hold that position. Simply put, a Trump-Pence Presidency wouldn't be the only 'TPP' that would destroy our climate."

Trending

Bernie Sanders officially endorsed Hillary Clinton—a decision many Democrats have been waiting for—Tuesday morning at a joint campaign event in New Hampshire.

During his endorsement speech, the Vermont senator said he intends to do everything in his power to ensure the former secretary of state is the next president of the U.S. Sanders began his speech by saying:

Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.

I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

Sanders' endorsement comes less than two weeks before the Democratic National Convention. On Sunday the senator, who was in charge of picking the members of the Democratic National Convention's Platform Committee, praised the adoption of "the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party," Democracy Now reported.

While Clinton wasn't known as the first pick for many environmental activists, Sanders has helped the presumptive party nominee develop a more extensive climate policy.

Throughout the primaries, Sanders helped pull Clinton and the party to the left and take stronger climate action.

"Democratic voters have been fortunate to witness a vigorous and hard-fought campaign between two candidates with a clear and progressive vision for out country—which is exactly how it should be," Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, said in a statement.

"Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders made this campaign about ideas. Ideas on how to stop climate disruption while speeding our transition to clean, renewable energy and leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Ides on the importance of rejecting dangerous trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership. And ideas on how best to help those whose homes and lives have been wrecked by pollution."

The Sierra Club formally endorsed Clinton in June.

Not everyone was as pleased with the endorsement announcement, though. Several people took to Twitter to show their dislike of the news:

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump weighed in on the endorsement, too:

The Democratic National Convention will be held July 25-28 in Philadelphia.

By Andy Rowell

According to a new analysis, the U.S. now holds more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and Russia, the first time this has happened. And more than half of the U.S.'s remaining oil reserves are in shale oil.

The analysis, by Rystad Energy, has concluded that recoverable oil in the U.S. from existing fields, discoveries and yet undiscovered areas is equivalent to 264 billion barrels, which easily beats Saudi Arabia's 212 billion barrels and just squeezes past Russia's 256 billion.

Photo credit: Paul Lowry

The crux though will be whether the U.S. shale industry can access the finance to carry on exploiting shale. And that remains to be seen.

The mini-revival in the oil price may be over. Having rallied since its low point earlier in the year of $27, oil had reached the $60 a mark, but has slipped back to below $50 a barrel on concerns about a slowdown in the global economy has increased.

And those looking for a rapid increase in the next few months look set to be disappointed. The CEO of the world's largest oil trader, Vitol, which trades about 6 million barrels a day, has told Bloomberg that oil prices will not rise much further over the coming months.

Vitol's boss, Ian Taylor said: "I cannot see the market really roaring ahead. We have a lot of oil in the system and it will take us considerable time to work that off."

The international benchmark will probably end the year "not too far away from where we are today" and rise to about $60 by the end of 2017, Taylor said.

According to Bloomberg: "The wild card for next year is U.S. shale supply, which appears to have reached a bottom, but it's too early to say whether growth will resume."

But shale growth is not looking certain, with the industry still struggling with a low oil price and access to financing. And one of the key way to access financing is via bond sales.

As the Financial Times reported: "Bond sales by U.S. independent oil and gas companies have fallen to their slowest rate for more than a decade, in a warning sign of financing constraints that could hold back the industry's recovery."

In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. shale sector sold a paltry $280m of bonds in the second quarter, making it a slower period than any since the financial crisis of 2008-09.

In contrast, the paper points out, the industry raised almost $860bn from bond sales and bank loans during the boom years of 2007-2014. It is an industry still sitting on a crumbling pile of debt.

And the bottom line is that the industry is still spending more than it is earning. According to the FT, the leading U.S. exploration and production companies cut their capital spending to $14.9 billion in the first quarter of this year, which is a whopping $10 billion more than they earned.

This is totally unsustainable and will constrict the smaller players from accessing bonds and finance. Gary Ross of Pira Energy told the FT: "It's not going to be easy to reconstruct this industry."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Future of Nuclear Power Is 'Challenging,' Says WNA Report

Public Lands Development Rigged in Favor of Oil and Gas

Free Trade, DNC Platform and the Climate Crisis

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

By Alleen Brown

Under orders from President Trump, the Army Corps of Engineers on Feb. 7 approved a final easement allowing Energy Transfer Partners to drill under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Construction has re-started, and lawyers for the company said it could take as little as 30 days for oil to flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

By Nika Knight

Experiments involving genetically engineered animals have nearly tripled in Germany in the past 10 years, driven by a burgeoning global industry that involves inventing and patenting genetically altered species for scientific research, says a new study commissioned by Germany's Green Party and conducted by the research group Testbiotech.

A GMO mouse with a gene related to hair growth removed from its genome, at left, next to a mouse with an unaltered genome.Wikimedia Commons

"The massive increase in animal testing in the genetics field is unacceptable," Nicole Maisch, the Green Party's parliamentary spokesperson for the protection of animals and consumer policy, told the newspaper Der Westen.

"Particularly when the experiments' usefulness from a medical standpoint is extremely questionable or when the trials have revealed themselves to be unsuccessful," Maisch said, "we must not allow any more animals to be tortured."

The study, which was released Wednesday and shared with Süddeutsche Zeitung and newspapers owned by Germany's Funke Mediengruppe, found that nearly 950,000 animals were subjected to experiments in Germany in 2013 alone and a full third of those involved genetically modified animals.

The genomes of mice, rats and fish are being tinkered with the most, reports Süddeutsche Zeitung, but rabbits and pigs are popular choices, too.

Moreover, Süddeutsche Zeitung notes:

In contrast to conventional animal testing, the research on genetically manipulated animals is especially deadly, says Silke Strittmatter of the organization Doctors Against Animal Experiments: "We can safely assume that up to 54 animals die for the creation of a single genetically modified animal." To achieve the desired outcome, scientists must experiment with many variations, which in many cases involves breeding multiple generations and then killing them. In this fashion, the number of genetically altered animals is increasing, despite the fact that in the last two years, for the first time the number of animals used for traditional experimental trials has fallen.

A race to patent and profit from genetically modified species is driving the growing global market for such creatures, observes the German newspaper: "Researchers patent altered animals, such as "knockout mice" and sign license deals with corporations, which in turn aggressively market the animals to laboratories—as "custom-manipulated rodents," for example."

The newspaper continues:

In the USA, biotech corporations market patented animals aggressively. [Study author Christoph] Then describes a downright "price war." Patents for new genetic engineering techniques then lead to more animal trials. In recent years, patent applications were even submitted for genetically modified primates and great apes—and some of those were approved. It is for this reason that the speaker for the Green faction on genetic engineering, Harald Ebner, is calling for a Europe-wide ban on patents on living things.

Ebner also told Süddeutsche Zeitung that he fears so-called "free trade" deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will lead to the worldwide dispersal of products from genetically modified animals.

The newspaper observes that "meat and other products from genetically modified animals cannot be sold in Germany. [...] In other countries, however, among other things scientists are experimenting with altering the ingredients of milk by changing the genes of cows. For such experiments, embryos must be genetically altered and then implanted in a surrogate. The Testbiotech study notes that these experiments often involve pain and suffering, as such laboratory animals are frequently killed in order to remove cells or the genetically modified embryo."

It seems other countries have reason to worry, as the U.S. government continues to fight for pro-GMO legislation. Indeed, when President Obama last week signed into law a corporate-friendly GMO labeling bill, he "scratched out the laws of Vermont, Connecticut and Maine that required the labeling of genetically engineered foods," reports AlterNet.

"He also nullified the [GMO] seed labeling laws in Vermont and Virginia that allowed farmers to choose what seeds they wanted to buy and plant," the progressive outlet observes, adding that "for good measure he preempted Alaska's law requiring the labeling of any [GMO] fish or fish product, passed to protect the state's vital fisheries from contamination by recently approved genetically engineered salmon."

To truly get the most out of life, a person needs to be able to get a good night's sleep, which has led many to wonder if there is anything behind the idea of CBD for sleep improvement.

Read More Show Less

Trending

By Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth Action

The same day TransCanada sued the U.S. government for $15 billion, the Democratic Party's platform drafting committee met in Missouri. Between the two, there is a lesson to be learned about free trade and the climate crisis.

The lawsuit was the anticipated result of President Obama rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.Using a notorious provision in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Canadian oil giant is hoping to claim $15 billion in lost future profits by dragging the U.S. before an international tribunal. These sorts of extra-judicial forums, where corporations can sue governments for enforcing their own laws, are a hallmark of established free trade deals like NAFTA and looming ones like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Forty environmental groups signed a letter urging Congress to reject the TransPacific Partnership. Dylan Petrohilos / Think Progress

The meeting in Missouri was to finalize a draft of the 2016 Democratic Party platform, a usually sleepy and symbolic process that this year has exploded into a proxy fight between presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Pipelines like Keystone XL and free trade writ large were both on the agenda—and the votes cast reflect a growing divide between the party establishment and the grassroots.

Within hours of TransCanada filing its lawsuit under NAFTA, the platform committee had the chance to officially oppose the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, a Pacific Rim trade deal that would allow hundreds of new fossil fuel companies access to provisions similar to those used by TransCanada. The motion was rejected. Despite both candidates being on record opposing the current TPP, the motion was rejected in a 10-5 vote. It was supported by appointees from Sanders and opposed by appointees from Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Compromise language was offered instead, calling for trade deals that protect workers and the environment without mentioning the TPP by name.

Talking about responsible trade but refusing to be clear about the TPP isn't a good look, for the DNC or anyone else. If the TPP and its European counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, were both enacted, it would radically expand the power of fossil fuel companies to sue the U.S. for laws and regulations that hurt their expected future profits. The power to launch lawsuits like TransCanada's would be put on steroids and everything fromlocal fracking bans to renewable energy mandates could be litigated in trade tribunals run overwhelmingly by corporate lawyers.

Besides missing the boat on trade, the committee managed a few other favors for the TransCanadas of the world. Jane Kleeb, the founder of Bold Nebraska and the newly elected Chair of Nebraska Democrats, supported a motion calling for ending the use of eminent domain in support of fossil fuel projects. It was unceremoniously voted down. Another rejected motion was an endorsement of the so-called "climate test," the principle that infrastructure and other projects shouldn't be approved if they worsen carbon emissions. Applying this standard was what led President Obama to reject Keystone XL in the first place.

In fact, Friday turned out to be a bad night for serious climate policy all around. Motions pushed by Sanders's appointee Bill McKibben supporting a carbon tax and a national frackingban were both rejected. So too was a motion to keep fossil fuels in the ground by ending new leasing on our public lands and waters.

Even the ambitious energy target supported by both Clinton and Sanders—100 percent clean energy by 2050—wasn't an unqualified success. The language is vague enough that it could include everything from wind and solar to dangerous false solutions like biomass, carbon capture and sequestration and nukes.

The concern about what exactly counts as clean energy isn't unfounded. If Bill McKibben was chosen by Sanders as a progressive voice on climate, his alter ego appointed by Clinton is Carol Browner, a one-time Environmental Protection Agency administrator who splits her time these days between professional lobbying and pro-nuclear advocacy.

The good news is that Missouri isn't the end. The platform still needs to be approved by the full platform committee next month in Orlando and after that by the full convention in Philadelphia. When it comes to pushing back on trade and climate, there are still two more shots.

As philosopher Dr. Cornel West, another Sen. Sanders appointee, said as he abstained from the final vote, "Take it to the next stage."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Oakland Bans Coal Exports, Huge Win for Local Residents

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

'Three Amigos' Vow to Get Half Their Electricity From Clean Power by 2025

DNC Platform Calls for Fossil Fuel Investigations, 100% Renewable Energy

By Molly Dorozenski

At a time when Secretary Clinton should be strengthening her progressive policies, it does not make sense to pick an industry insider who supports fracking to lead her transition team. Unfortunately, that's the exact move that Clinton made this week in appointing former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to that post.

A flare burns near a hydraulic fracturing drilling tower in rural Weld County in northern Colorado, the most intensively fracked area in the U.S. Image of fracking site in Colorado: © Les Stone / Greenpeace

Though not an official lobbyist, Salazar took a job as partner at WilmerHale after leaving the Department of the Interior in 2013, a law and lobbying firm working on energy and environmental issues amongst other things. Salazar's track record has illustrated time and time again that he is on the side of big industry, and not the people. He is pro-Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), pro-fracking and pro-Keystone XL pipeline. If Clinton plans to effectively tackle climate change, the last thing her team needs is a fossil fuel industry friend like Salazar.

A NASA study released this week identified fracking as responsible for a methane "hot spot" in the Four Corners region of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, the largest concentration of the potent greenhouse gas in the country. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet Salazar has actually made the statement that "there's not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone." The truth is fracking is devastating his home state of Colorado, yet he has chosen to side with industry.

Most recently, Salazar came out in opposition to ballot initiatives to restrict fracking in Colorado. Communities throughout the state spent months collecting signatures for the ballot measures that would establish setbacks for drilling operations from schools and hospitals and empower communities to vote on fracking. Organizers on the ground were fought tooth and nail by the industry, which spent more $75 million since 2014 on PR firms and front groups intent on defeating the ballot measures. Earlier this month, people power overcame its first major hurdle by gathering enough signatures to submit the ballot measures to the Colorado Secretary of State. The office is now officially counting the signatures for qualification for the ballot in November.

A massive fight remains for Colorado activists in the months leading into November. As more oil and gas money flows into the state to mislead voters on the ballot initiatives, it is more important than ever for Secretary Clinton to pick the side of the people over the industry and its mouthpieces. Clinton has indicated support for local control over fracking, but picking an industry insider like Salazar who is fighting against the people's will sends the wrong message about which side she is truly on.

If Secretary Clinton wants to be the environmental leader that she claims to be in campaign speeches, she has to put the people before industry insiders.

Molly Dorozenski is the campaign director for Greenpeace Democracy.

Trending

"I'm thrilled to announce my running mate, @TimKaine," presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton tweeted at 8:11 p.m. Friday.

Though the news was not a surprise, as Kaine has long been known as a likely choice, Clinton's pick stirred immediate reaction among the environmental movement. The Virginia senator supports fracking and offshore oil drilling, but was an early opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline.

350 Action Director May Boeve shared her concern of Clinton's vice presidential pick.

"Tim Kaine won't energize the climate base, so it's up to Hillary to start staking out some clearer positions," Boeve said. "Kaine was with us on Keystone XL, but against us on offshore drilling and fracking. This November, climate activists, young people, and progressives will turn up at the polls for candidates who say the magic words, 'keep it in the ground.' If Democrats want to drive turnout, it's time to come out more clearly against drilling, fracking and new fossil fuel infrastructure."

On Sunday at 1 p.m., one day before the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia, thousands of people will take part in the March for a Clean Energy Revolution calling for a ban on fracking. The march is organized by Americans Against Fracking and Pennsylvanians Against Fracking and backed by more than 900 organizations across all 50 states.

"Hillary Clinton's vice president and entire administration should be committed 100 percent to combating catastrophic climate change by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, supporting renewable energy and protecting our democracy from corporate influence," Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard said.

"It's clear from the polling that Secretary Clinton needs the progressive wing to vote in force if she's going to win in November, so Tim Kaine must show himself from the start that he'll use his office to be a climate champion," Leonard continued.

"He showed he could do this when he became an early opponent of the Keystone Pipeline, but Kaine's opposition to regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and his support for natural gas exports and pipelines, prove he still has a long way to go. Clinton's positions on fracking may have progressed during her candidacy, but the climate movement will continue to push her and her running mate until they pledge to keep all fossil fuels in the ground."

League of Conservation Voters

Sierra Club's Executive Director Michael Brune feels "Secretary Clinton's selection of Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate completes the strongest environmental ticket we've ever seen." When comparing Clinton's campaign to Donald Trumps, Brune said, "The Democratic ticket is in sharp contrast to the Republican's, which features not one but two climate deniers, a first in American history. The Trump-Pence regime would be the only world leaders to hold that position. Simply put, a Trump-Pence Presidency wouldn't be the only 'TPP' that would destroy our climate."

Trending

Bernie Sanders officially endorsed Hillary Clinton—a decision many Democrats have been waiting for—Tuesday morning at a joint campaign event in New Hampshire.

During his endorsement speech, the Vermont senator said he intends to do everything in his power to ensure the former secretary of state is the next president of the U.S. Sanders began his speech by saying:

Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.

I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

Sanders' endorsement comes less than two weeks before the Democratic National Convention. On Sunday the senator, who was in charge of picking the members of the Democratic National Convention's Platform Committee, praised the adoption of "the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party," Democracy Now reported.

While Clinton wasn't known as the first pick for many environmental activists, Sanders has helped the presumptive party nominee develop a more extensive climate policy.

Throughout the primaries, Sanders helped pull Clinton and the party to the left and take stronger climate action.

"Democratic voters have been fortunate to witness a vigorous and hard-fought campaign between two candidates with a clear and progressive vision for out country—which is exactly how it should be," Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, said in a statement.

"Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders made this campaign about ideas. Ideas on how to stop climate disruption while speeding our transition to clean, renewable energy and leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Ides on the importance of rejecting dangerous trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership. And ideas on how best to help those whose homes and lives have been wrecked by pollution."

The Sierra Club formally endorsed Clinton in June.

Not everyone was as pleased with the endorsement announcement, though. Several people took to Twitter to show their dislike of the news:

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump weighed in on the endorsement, too:

The Democratic National Convention will be held July 25-28 in Philadelphia.

By Andy Rowell

According to a new analysis, the U.S. now holds more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and Russia, the first time this has happened. And more than half of the U.S.'s remaining oil reserves are in shale oil.

The analysis, by Rystad Energy, has concluded that recoverable oil in the U.S. from existing fields, discoveries and yet undiscovered areas is equivalent to 264 billion barrels, which easily beats Saudi Arabia's 212 billion barrels and just squeezes past Russia's 256 billion.

Photo credit: Paul Lowry

The crux though will be whether the U.S. shale industry can access the finance to carry on exploiting shale. And that remains to be seen.

The mini-revival in the oil price may be over. Having rallied since its low point earlier in the year of $27, oil had reached the $60 a mark, but has slipped back to below $50 a barrel on concerns about a slowdown in the global economy has increased.

And those looking for a rapid increase in the next few months look set to be disappointed. The CEO of the world's largest oil trader, Vitol, which trades about 6 million barrels a day, has told Bloomberg that oil prices will not rise much further over the coming months.

Vitol's boss, Ian Taylor said: "I cannot see the market really roaring ahead. We have a lot of oil in the system and it will take us considerable time to work that off."

The international benchmark will probably end the year "not too far away from where we are today" and rise to about $60 by the end of 2017, Taylor said.

According to Bloomberg: "The wild card for next year is U.S. shale supply, which appears to have reached a bottom, but it's too early to say whether growth will resume."

But shale growth is not looking certain, with the industry still struggling with a low oil price and access to financing. And one of the key way to access financing is via bond sales.

As the Financial Times reported: "Bond sales by U.S. independent oil and gas companies have fallen to their slowest rate for more than a decade, in a warning sign of financing constraints that could hold back the industry's recovery."

In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. shale sector sold a paltry $280m of bonds in the second quarter, making it a slower period than any since the financial crisis of 2008-09.

In contrast, the paper points out, the industry raised almost $860bn from bond sales and bank loans during the boom years of 2007-2014. It is an industry still sitting on a crumbling pile of debt.

And the bottom line is that the industry is still spending more than it is earning. According to the FT, the leading U.S. exploration and production companies cut their capital spending to $14.9 billion in the first quarter of this year, which is a whopping $10 billion more than they earned.

This is totally unsustainable and will constrict the smaller players from accessing bonds and finance. Gary Ross of Pira Energy told the FT: "It's not going to be easy to reconstruct this industry."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Future of Nuclear Power Is 'Challenging,' Says WNA Report

Public Lands Development Rigged in Favor of Oil and Gas

Free Trade, DNC Platform and the Climate Crisis

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and Mexican President Nieto are expected to announce a joint plan to generate half the three nations' electricity from clean power by 2025 at tomorrow's North American Leaders Summit. The plan encompasses not only renewables, but also nuclear power and carbon capture and storage operations.

President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and Mexican President Nieto are expected to announce a joint plan to generate half the three nations' electricity from clean power by 2025 at tomorrow's North American Leaders Summit.

Including these sources, 37 percent of the countries' electricity came from clean energy last year. Mexico is also expected to join the U.S. and Canada's target of cutting methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025.

White House senior adviser Brian Deese said the energy target is "an aggressive goal" for the U.S. but "achievable." Deese also said that the cooperation on climate and energy policy between the three countries "is stronger than it has been in decades … In all three countries, there is a significant move toward a clean energy economy."

Sierra Club's executive director Michael Brune agrees. "This agreement means the United States will more than double the amount of clean, renewable energy we get from sources like wind and solar within the next decade. Plus, this new commitment moves us towards achieving this goal five years earlier than under existing agreements.

"This is another demonstration of the international and North American unity behind a consensus for strong global climate action. Now more than ever, it's time we retire dirty and dangerous sources of energy like coal, oil, gas and nuclear, crack down on existing sources ofmethane pollution here at home, and commit toward growing a clean energy economy that creates jobs and protects our communities."

Lou Leonard, senior vice president of climate and energy for the World Wildlife Fund, sees the coming announcement as "a clear signal that cooperation, not isolation, remains atop of the global climate agenda."

"As the largest energy consumer, the United States must lead the way to this collective continent-wide goal by exceeding it at home through truly clean renewable energy and higher energy efficiency, Leonard said. "There's a big gap between what leaders pledged in Paris and the emissions cuts needed to fend off the most dire impacts of climate change. The United States needs to continue to drive international cooperation to accelerate emissions reductions and help developing countries leapfrog dirtier pathways. Today's announcements help move us closer to closing that gap."

For a deeper dive: CBC News, Washington Post, New York Times, Reuters, The Hill,Bloomberg, Greenwire, Politico Pro, Canadian Press, NPR, AP

For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation's Annual Gala to Fund Climate and Biodiversity Projects

Pink Snow a Bad Sign for the Future, Scientists Say

DNC Platform Calls for Fossil Fuel Investigations, 100% Renewable Energy

TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection

By Elliott Negin

When a handful of attorneys general launched investigations of ExxonMobil for climate fraud, I wonder if they had any idea that they would be attacked for attempting to stifle the company's right of free speech.

After all, if ExxonMobil publicly downplayed warnings by its own scientists about the threat posed by burning fossil fuels in its communications with investors and the general public, it very well may have committed fraud, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

Legal experts have cited the case against the tobacco industry as an apt analogy. For years, tobacco companies emphasized uncertainty about their products' risks to stave off government regulations. ExxonMobil essentially has been doing the same thing.

Regardless, attorneys general from 13 states and more than a dozen members of the House Science Committee have entered the fray on ExxonMobil's behalf, all making the same indefensible First Amendment argument. And—surprise, surprise—most of them are climate science deniers who get significant campaign funding from fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.

"AGs United for Dirty Power" Strikes Back

In late March, 17 attorneys general announced the formation of the AGs United for Clean Power coalition to defend the new federal rule curbing power plant carbon emissions and investigate energy companies for fraud. So far, coalition attorneys general from California, Massachusetts, New York and the Virgin Islands have opened investigations of ExxonMobil and more are likely in the offing.

In response, Attorneys General Luther Strange of Alabama and Ken Paxton of Texas filed an intervention plea in May in a Texas district court on behalf of ExxonMobil to quash one of the investigations. They then followed up with a June 15 letter to AGs United for Clean Power cosigned by 11 other state prosecutors calling for an end to the ExxonMobil probes. The group—essentially "AGs United for Dirty Power"—maintained "[u]sing law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech."

Just whose interests are Strange et al. representing?

Strange has been Alabama's attorney general since 2010. In 2014, his reelection campaign contributors included the American Coal Association, American Gas Association and Koch Industries, but his biggest energy industry supporter was Alabama Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the nation's largest electric utilities. Three Southern coal-fired power plants are the biggest carbon emitters in the country.

Paxton, meanwhile, received more money from the oil and gas industry than any other sector when he first ran for attorney general in 2014. His benefactors included Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Koch Industries, Marathon Oil and Phillips 66. ExxonMobil sat out Paxton's 2014 campaign, but the company contributed to his campaigns when he served in the Texas statehouse.

Eight other attorneys general who signed the Strange-Paxton letter also enjoy fossil fuel industry support. Jeff Landry of Louisiana and Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma pulled in the most contributions. Landry's 2015 campaign was funded by more than 40 oil and gas companies, including Halliburton, Hilcorp Energy, Koch Industries and Phillips 66. Pruitt's 2014 campaign, meanwhile, was backed by American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum and … ExxonMobil.

Not surprising, AGs United for Dirty Power prosecutors are not only going to bat for ExxonMobil, they are running interference for the coal industry, too. Eleven of the 13 attorneys general on the letter, including Strange, Paxton, Landry and Pruitt, are among the more than two dozen AGs who have sued the Environmental Protection Agency to block the Clean Power Plan, the new federal power plant carbon emissions rule.

ExxonMobil-Funded Reps Defend ExxonMobil

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith also leapt to the defense of the oil giant. In mid-May, Smith and 12 other committee members sent letters to the AGs United for Clean Power coalition and eight foundations and nonprofit groups, including 350.org, Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, demanding they turn over all documents and communications related to their efforts to hold ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies accountable for climate science deceptions. Echoing the Strange-Paxton argument, their letters charged that the attorneys general and the nonprofits are trying to "silence speech."

Twelve of the 13 signatories—including Smith—received campaign contributions from ExxonMobil since the 2010 election cycle and 10 of them got donations from Koch Industries.

The 17 AGs United for Clean Power members and other recipients of Smith et al.'s request refused to comply. In separate letters, they explained that the aim of the ExxonMobil investigations is to determine whether the company provided investors and the public with accurate information and reminded Smith and his colleagues that the First Amendment does not protect fraud. They maintained that Congress has no jurisdiction over state law enforcement activities and therefore has no right to demand documents and communications. Finally, they pointed out that—ironically enough—the committee's request threatens the nonprofit advocacy groups' First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

Indeed, the allegation that the attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil and the nonprofit organizations that have provided them information are somehow infringing on the company's free speech rights is absurd. No corporation has a First Amendment right to deliberately misinform about the harm associated with its product and attorneys general have every right to investigate whether a company's actions amount to fraud. Likewise, attorneys general have the right to consult with experts either publicly or confidentially in the course of their investigations. Moreover, the nonprofits singled out by Smith et al. have the right and responsibility to provide information to state prosecutors when they have reason to suspect corporate wrongdoing.

How did Smith react to this resounding rejection? On June 17, he and 16 other House Science Committee members sent a second round of letters to AGs United for Clean Power, the foundations and the nonprofit groups, again asking for documents related to the investigations. And again the recipients said no.

What's next? Will Strange and Paxton intervene in court again to try to stop another ExxonMobil investigation? Will Smith, who has a history of harassing federal climate scientists with subpoenas, resort to that tactic to force compliance with his request? Just how far will fossil fuel industry-funded elected officials go to protect one of the biggest carbon polluters in the world?

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. All federal campaign contribution data came from the Center for Responsive Politics. All state campaign contribution data came from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

U.S. Holds More Oil Reserves Than Saudi Arabia and Russia

The Future of Nuclear Power Is 'Challenging,' Says WNA Report

Public Lands Development Rigged in Favor of Oil and Gas

Free Trade, DNC Platform and the Climate Crisis