Climate activists rally to urge politicians to stand against climate denial on Jan. 9, 2017 in New York. DON EMMERT / AFP via Getty Images
The attorney general for Washington, DC filed a lawsuit on Thursday against four of the largest energy companies, claiming that the companies have spent millions upon millions of dollars to deceive customers in about the calamitous effect fossil fuel extraction and emissions is having on the climate crisis, according to The Washington Post.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The suit names ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron as the defendants, and argues that the companies "systematically and intentionally misled consumers in Washington, DC ... about the central role their products play in causing climate change," according to The Hill.</p><p>Karl A. Racine, the DC attorney general, said in a news conference on Thursday that the four companies painted a false picture of what effect their products had and therefore violated consumer protection laws.</p><p>"For decades, these oil and gas companies spent millions to mislead consumers and discredit climate science in pursuit of profits," Racine said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>, as <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "OAG filed this suit to end these disinformation campaigns and to hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices."</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxonmobil-climate-lawsuit-2641328126.html" target="_self">New York</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/massachusetts-sues-exxon-mobil-2641105588.html" target="_self">Massachusetts</a> have both sued ExxonMobil for fraud related to the climate crisis, though New York lost its case against the energy giant. California and Baltimore have filed similar suits. On Wednesday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> in state court accusing ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources and the American Petroleum Institute of consumer fraud, failure to warn, deceptive trade practices, and fraud and false advertising, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Ellison's complaint said that Minnesota was already feeling the effects from the climate crisis as droughts, flooding and crop failures have damaged the state's economy. That has all happened while the companies named in the suit invested in public relations campaigns that denied the climate crisis and even promoted increased CO2 as a solution to world hunger, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a>.</p><p>"Impacts from climate change hurt our low-income residents and communities of color first and worst. The impacts on farmers in our agricultural state are widespread as well," Ellison said in a statement. "Holding these companies accountable for the climate deception they've spread and continue to spread is essential to helping families to afford their lives and live with dignity and respect."</p>
<p>The two suits drew praise from environmental activists and the science community.</p><p>In a statement Thursday, Greenpeace USA climate campaign director Janet Redman said, "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">Climate denial</a> is not a victimless crime. Now, one by one states and local governments are stepping up to hold the perpetrators accountable," as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/25/dc-sues-fossil-fuel-giants-decades-spending-millions-mislead-consumers-and-discredit" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> reported. "Just yesterday it was Minnesota Attorney General Ellison standing up to big oil, today it's D.C. Attorney General Racine."</p>
<p>The Union of Concerned Scientists also issued a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a> noting that the fossil fuel industry long knew about the devastating impacts of burning fossil fuels, but followed the Big Tobacco playbook and waged a disinformation campaign.</p><p>"When scientists, including some employed by ExxonMobil, warned that burning fossil fuels could catastrophically alter the climate, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell funded decades-long disinformation campaigns designed to undermine climate science, while simultaneously unleashing an army of lobbyists to block state and federal policies that sought to limit global warming emissions to protect communities across the country," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>"As a result, the nation's capital and communities across the country and world now have to battle worsening floods, heat waves, wildfires and many other avoidable climate impacts," she added.</p>
<p>In the DC suit, Racine specifically mentioned the fossil fuel companies' strategy lifted from Big Tobacco. "The companies not only employed the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition — a fake grassroots citizen group created by Big Tobacco as part of the industry's misinformation campaign — they also funded and promoted some of the same scientists hired by tobacco companies," he said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>The lawsuit also alleges that the companies have recently exaggerated their investments and commitments to renewable energy.</p><p>"Defendants have shifted their advertising strategies to mislead DC consumers into believing that buying Defendants' products supports companies committed to reducing and reversing the effects of climate change," the lawsuit asserts, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-attorney-general-sues-oil-and-gas-companies-alleging-industry-misled-public-about-climate-change/2020/06/25/7b633584-b705-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "In fact, the opposite is true."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Fossil Fuel Companies Knew': Honolulu Files Lawsuit Over Climate ... ›
- Climate Crisis Lawsuits Expanding Worldwide: 'A Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Fisherman push their boat during low tide on oily mud in the river at Ogoniland's village of K-Dere, near Bodo, which is part of the Niger Delta region, on Feb. 20, 2019. Decades of oil spills has left the Ogoniland region in southern Nigeria an environmental disaster zone — but now hopes are high of a rebirth of farming, fishing and clean water. YASUYOSHI CHIBA / AFP / Getty Images
By Jenna McGuire
In 2011, a ground-breaking report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) on oil pollution in Ogoniland highlighted the devastating impact of the oil industry in the Niger Delta and made concrete recommendations for clean-up measures and immediate support for the region's devastated communities.
<p>Now, nearly ten years later, a new <a href="http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/extractive_industries/2020/no_clean-up_no_justice_final.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> published Thursday by Friends of the Earth Europe, Amnesty International, ERA and Milieudefensie, details Shell's failure to implement the "emergency measures" laid out by UNEP and says only 11 percent of contaminated areas in the Niger Delta have begun the clean-up process.</p>
<p>Titled "No Clean-Up, No Justice," the new report explains that for "more than five decades, the people of Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta, have struggled against oil pollution, destruction of the environment and human rights violations." </p><p>According to estimates, Shell Oil has <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/07/new-report-details-how-fossil-fuel-industrys-climate-destruction-also-exacerbates" target="_blank">dumped</a> an estimated nine to 13 million barrels of crude oil into the Niger Delta since 1958.</p><p>"Oil and gas extraction has caused large-scale, continued contamination of the water and soil in Ogoni communities," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/06/18/shells-oil-pollution-niger-delta-people-sick-waiting-justice" target="_blank">said</a> Friends of the Earth in a statement. "The continued and systematic failure of oil companies and government to clean up have left hundreds of thousands of Ogoni people facing serious health risks, struggling to access safe drinking water, and unable to earn a living."</p>
<p>As Common Dreams <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/07/new-report-details-how-fossil-fuel-industrys-climate-destruction-also-exacerbates" target="_blank">reported</a> earlier this year, the local government has also worked with Shell to suppress the right of people in Ogoniland to fight against pollution.</p><p>"The discovery of oil in Ogoniland has brought huge suffering for its people," said Osai Ojigho of Amnesty International Nigeria. "Over many years we have documented how Shell has failed to clean up contamination from spills and it's a scandal that this has not yet happened."<br><br>The ecological damage, Ojigho added, "is leading to serious human rights impacts — on people's health and ability to access food and clean water. Shell must not get away with this — we will continue to fight until every last trace of oil is removed from Ogoniland."</p>
<p>Almost a full decade after the UNEP findings, the new report concluded that:</p><ul> <li>Work has begun on only 11 pecent of polluted sites identified by UNEP, with only a further 5 percent included in current clean-up efforts, and no site has been entirely cleaned up;</li></ul><ul> <li>Actions classified by UNEP as "emergency measures" - immediate action on drinking water and health protection - have not been implemented properly; there are still communities without access to clean water supplies;</li></ul><ul> <li>Health and environmental monitoring has not been carried out;</li></ul><ul> <li>There has not been any public accounting for how the 31 million USD funding provided since 2018 has been spent;</li></ul><ul> <li>11 of 16 companies contracted for the clean-up are reported to have no registered expertise in oil pollution remediation or related areas;</li></ul><ul><li>HYPREP has numerous conflicts of interest as Shell continues to be involved in the governing boards for the clean-up and even places its own staff in HYPREP.</li></ul><p>The report also lays out a set of demands for a rapid clean-up and funding for regional recovery, with chief responsibility for that effort aimed at the Nigerian government, Shell, and other governments — mostly in Europe — home to other major oil companies operating in the Niger Delta.</p><p>"After nine years of promises without proper action and decades of pollution, the people of Ogoniland are not only sick of dirty drinking water, oil-contaminated fish and toxic fumes," said Godwin Ojo of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria.<br><br>"They are sick of waiting for justice," Ojo added. "They are dying by the day."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/19/shell-must-not-get-away-niger-delta-still-waiting-big-oil-clean-devastating" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Shell protesters. Dana Drugmand
Two years after internal documents surfaced showing that Royal Dutch Shell, like ExxonMobil, knew about climate dangers decades ago, the oil giant released its latest annual report outlining its business strategy and approach to addressing climate change. Despite clear warnings from scientists, global health experts and even central banks of impending climate-driven crises, Shell's report largely sends a message that everything is fine and the company's "business strategy is sound."
<p>That is not to say that Shell is ignoring the challenges facing it and other oil majors. But overall Shell appears to be toeing the line between saying it is responding to the climate challenge and inevitable energy transition on the one hand, and maintaining its core oil and gas business model on the other.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/19/shell-s-latest-annual-report-more-greenwashing">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>Shell's <a href="https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2019/servicepages/downloads/files/download2.php?file=shell_annual_report_2019.pdf" target="_blank">2019 Annual Report</a> is filled with statements that reveal the company's perspective on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Paris-agreement" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris agreement</a>, the energy transition, and climate litigation and regulatory risk to its business. A few of these statements seem contradictory, and it is important to keep in mind the context of #ShellKnew when the company says now, in 2020, that it is committed to being part of the solution.</p>
Shell’s Strategy
<p>According to the report, there are three parts to Shell's overall strategy going forward: to thrive in the energy transition, to provide a world-class investment case, and to sustain a strong societal license to operate. That may sound good on paper, but in reality significant challenges are mounting for each of these pillars.</p><p>In terms of the energy transition, Shell appears to be paying lip service to it more than actually revamping its portfolio or overhauling its business model. Its core business remains oil and gas. Period.</p><p>The company may be ahead of some other oil giants like Exxon and Chevron in terms of adding alternative energies to its energy mix, but overall its commitment to clean energy is minimal.</p><p>Shell notes in its report that it spends "$1-2 billion a year until 2020 in different services and products from a range of cleaner sources," and "investments in power could grow to $2-3 billion a year on average" from 2021 to 2025. The vast majority of the company's capital expenditure ($24bn to $29bn in 2020) goes into oil and gas, and failure to replace proved reserves could have a "material adverse effect." Instead of aligning with the energy transition, Shell's business model is based on continual hydrocarbon exploitation.</p><p>In terms of a "world-class investment," the oil and gas sector is particularly vulnerable at the moment to financial pressure and investors are increasingly turning away from fossil fuels. Jim Cramer infamously dubbed fossil fuels "<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/01/cnbc-jim-cramer-fossil-fuel-industry-death-knell-phase" target="_blank">in the death knell phase</a>." Shell acknowledges this risk. It notes in its report that fossil fuel divestment "could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access capital markets."</p><p>Shell also recognizes its vulnerability to an eroding social license as the public and particularly younger generations start to scorn Big Oil.</p><p>"In 2019, many protested about climate change, sometimes directly targeting Shell," Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden wrote in the report. The company includes challenges to its reputation as a risk factor, noting, "There is increasing focus on the role of oil and gas in the context of climate change and energy transition. This could negatively affect our brand, reputation and licence to operate."</p><p>Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the risk to its social license.</p>
Shell Claims to Support Paris Agreement, Plans for Gradual Energy Transition
<p>In its report, Shell says it fully supports the Paris agreement goal to limit warming well below 2 degrees C, and supports "the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system." But, in <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bernard-looney-announces-new-ambition-for-bp.html" target="_blank">contrast to fellow European oil major BP</a>, Shell is not committing its own business to net zero emissions.</p><p>Shell says it has "no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years." Instead, Shell's Net Carbon Footprint "ambition" is to reduce emissions (including its customers' and suppliers' emissions) of its energy production and products by 20 percent by 2035 and by 50 percent by 2050. This is not aligned with climate science guidelines that say complete decarbonization or "net zero" is necessary by 2050 at the latest.</p><p>Shell's own business is therefore not aligned with the goal of the Paris agreement, and the company is <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/04/05/shell-sued-in-the-netherlands-for-insufficient-action-on-climate-change/" target="_blank">facing a lawsuit</a> over this in its home country of the Netherlands. Current emissions reduction plans or "Nationally Determined Contributions" (NDCs) submitted by countries under the Paris agreement are also inadequate. As Shell notes in its report, current NDCs amount to about 3 degrees C of warming. "In coming decades, we expect countries to tighten these NDCs to meet the goals of the Paris agreement," the report states. Shell's view appears to be that the world has decades to get its act together.</p><p>In that view, Shell says it is fully on board with the energy transition and plans to transform its own business "over time." The report includes statements like "Shell aims to become an integrated power player and grow, over time, a material new business", and, "for us, protecting the environment also means working to transform our product mix over time, for example, by expanding the choice of lower-carbon products we offer customers."</p><p>Yet, in a seeming contradiction to these statements, Shell says it "agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report," which clearly warned that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require, as Shell notes, "an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change."</p><p>While Shell claims to fully support the Paris agreement, in another seeming contradiction, the company states in its report that the government action necessary to meet Paris targets could harm its business: "Policies and regulations designed to limit the increase in global temperatures to well below 2°C could have a material adverse effect on Shell – through higher operating costs and reduced demand for some of our products."</p><p>Shell also says it is wary of governments actually taking climate action: "we believe measures taken by governments to control national energy transitions may also have unintended consequences." </p><p>Yet, at the same time, Shell says it expects to be subject to increasing regulation. "We also expect that <span style="background-color: initial;">GHG</span> regulation, as well as emission reduction actions by customers, will continue to result in suppression of demand for fossil fuels, either through taxes, fees and/or incentives to promote the sale of lower-carbon electric vehicles or even through the future prohibition of sales of new diesel or gasoline vehicles, such as the prohibition in the United Kingdom (<span style="background-color: initial;">UK</span>) beginning in 2035. This could result in lower revenue and, in the long term, potential impairment of certain assets," the report states.</p>
Climate Litigation Risk
<p>Shell, like other fossil fuel companies, has long been concerned about governments imposing climate policies or regulations that would affect its business. Shell and its industry peers are already facing climate lawsuits, and Shell is explicitly identifying climate litigation as part of a broader risk factor associated with "rising climate change concern."</p><p>In its report, Shell acknowledged the lawsuits could negatively impact its financial condition: "In some countries, governments, regulators, organisations and individuals have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition."</p><p>Shell actually foresaw climate-related lawsuits as a possibility more than 20 years ago. One of the internal documents that a Dutch news organization first uncovered (and published on the site Climate Files) is a <a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1998-shell-internal-tina-group-scenarios-1998-2020-report/" target="_blank">1998 document of Shell planning scenarios</a> where the company hypothetically envisions a series of violent storms battering the eastern U.S., which then spur environmental <span style="background-color: initial;">NGO</span>s to bring "a class-action suit against the <span style="background-color: initial;">US</span> government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done."</p>Shell Knew
<p>One statement from Shell's annual report rings particularly true: "Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system." </p><p>Indeed, Shell has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s" target="_blank">long known</a> that fossil fuels are warming the planet and that the consequences would be of a huge magnitude.</p><p>One internal Shell document from 1988 called "The Greenhouse Effect" warned that GHG emissions would lead to warming over the next century, likely ranging from 1.5 C to 3.5 C. According to that document, "The changes may be the greatest in recorded history." Some parts of the planet may become uninhabitable, and there may be "significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather," it says. Impacts could be severe and "could have major social, economic, and political consequences."</p><p>What did Shell do with that knowledge? It started introducing doubt and giving weight to a 'significant minority' of 'alternative viewpoints' as the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism" target="_blank">full implications for the company's business model</a> became clear.</p><p>Shell was a member of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-climate-coalition" target="_blank">Global Climate Coalition</a>, a fossil fuel industry-funded group that worked to undermine climate science and block climate policy internationally. The group formed in 1988 and Shell was a member throughout much of the 1990s.</p><p>During that time Shell was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/exclusive-company-docs-show-shell-secretly-studied-climate-risks-10-years-warning-investors" target="_blank">not exactly upfront with its own shareholders</a> about potential risks climate change posed to its business. The first time Shell even mentioned climate change was in a 1991 annual report. But it wasn't until 2004 that Shell made a clear warning in its annual report about financial risk associated with fossil fuel investment.</p><p>Critics have for many years accused Shell's <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/how-shell-greenwashed-its-image-internal-documents-warned-fossil-fuels-contribution-climate-change" target="_blank">of greenwashing</a> — acknowledging the climate threat and touting its "commitment" to being part of the solution, despite continuing to spend heavily on oil and gas with only minimal investment in alternative energy. Shell's latest annual report suggests the company isn't deviating far from that strategy.<span></span></p>From Your Site Articles
- A New Golden Age for Big Oil or a Golden Goodbye? - EcoWatch ›
- Shell Shareholders Vote Down Climate Change Proposal But Signal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
The Shell Puget Sound Refinery in Anacortes, Washington. John Westrock / Flickr
The Washington Department of Ecology responded to an oil spill that took place Friday night when a Crowley Maritime Barge was transferring five million gallons of oil to the Shell Puget Sound Refinery, CNN reported.
<p>Around 20 gallons spilled, of which five entered the water, and that oil was contained within an area that was boomed before the transfer began. The cleanup was completed by 8:30 a.m. Sunday, the department said.</p><p>"There were no impacts to the shoreline or <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a>," department spokeswoman Cheryl Ann Bishop told CNN in an email.</p><p>The spill occurred at around 11:45 p.m. in Anacortes, Washington, according to the department. The barge was transferring an Alaska North Slope crude-oil blend at the end of a pier that extends into Fidalgo Bay when crew members saw oil spilling from the barge, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/oil-spill-in-fidalgo-bay-late-friday-appears-contained-ecology-says/" target="_blank">The Seattle Times reported</a>.</p><p>An oil sheen was visible on the water inside the containment boom, which covered an area of 225 by 30 feet, roughly the size of a tennis court.</p>
<div id="163e0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="TT9DKO1576661128"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1195719372523749376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The amount of oil is still unknown but there is a crude oil sheen on the water inside the containment boom covering… https://t.co/Yp4D3v3AVJ</div> — WA Dept of Ecology (@WA Dept of Ecology)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcologyWA/statuses/1195719372523749376">1573916688.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Washington state law requires that containment booms be put in place before transferring oil over water as a preventative measure, and Bishop told CNN that the law was one reason the spill was so successfully contained and cleaned.</p><p>"In this case, it was pre-boomed, as it's supposed to be," Ty Keltner, the Department of Ecology's communications manager for spill response, told The Seattle Times.</p><p>The crew identified the cause of the spill as a pressure relief valve that was then secured, stopping the spill.</p><p>"No oil in the water is acceptable for any of us who do this kind of work," Suzanne Lagoni, deputy public information officer for Shell Puget Sound Refinery, told <a href="https://komonews.com/news/local/crews-work-to-cleanup-oil-spill-at-shell-puget-sound-refinery-in-anacortes?fbclid=IwAR1BRL1pxf-mKRarIBWLkpQIqpDg38d_ENihmwO2KLIMVgXDSoF2d-Qw-YY" target="_blank">KOMO News</a>. "It's not acceptable to the people of Washington or to the people of Anacortes."</p><p>Shell said that there were no injuries as a result of the spill, and that it did not impact air quality, The Seattle Times reported.</p><p>The Shell refinery where the spill took place was opened in 1958 and was originally owned by Texaco. It currently processes around 5.7 million gallons of crude oil from Alaska and Central and Western Canada daily.</p><p>The risk of more oil spills is one reason why environmental advocates and indigenous groups oppose the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trans-mountain-pipeline" target="_self">Trans Mountain Pipeline</a> expansion, which would lead to a seven-fold increase in the number of oil tankers moving through the Salish Sea between Washington State and British Columbia, according to <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/u-s-tribes-decry-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-approval" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>.</p><p>"The Tulalip Tribes are extremely disappointed with Prime Minister Trudeau's approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline," Tulalip Tribes Chairwoman Teri Gobin told Earthjustice after the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trudeau-approves-trans-mountain-expansion-2638915731.html" target="_self">approval was announced in June</a>. "We face the very real threat of an oil spill that puts the Salish Sea at risk. We will continue to oppose this and other projects that threaten our ancestral waters in the Salish Sea."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
$20 Billion Fund in Denmark Divests From 10 Major Oil Companies, Citing 'Poor Returns'
06 September 2019
Energy
Aerial view of Denmark's Baltic Sea Coast. schneider_photografie / Pixabay
A Danish pension fund has said it would sell its stake in major oil companies as their business models are incompatible with the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.
<p>MP Pension, a $20 billion pension for Danish M.A's, M.Sc.'s and Ph.D's who are employed in public sector universities and upper secondary schools, said it would dump its stakes in 10 of the world's largest oil companies, including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, PetroChina, Rosneft and Royal Dutch Shell.</p><p>The divestments amount to nearly $100 million, or 0.5 percent of the fund's total portfolio.</p><p>"We found that none of the oil majors has a business model that is compatible with the goals of Paris Agreement and thus we decided to sell them all," Anders Schelde, the fund's chief investment officer, told DW. "We put them all on our blacklist, our exclusion list."</p><p>The fund reviewed the corporate strategies of the companies to figure out how serious they were about tackling climate change, their capital expenditure to see if they were building new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" rel="noopener noreferrer">fossil fuel</a> projects and finally their lobbying efforts to ensure they remained in sync with the climate goals.</p><h2>Dirty Investments</h2><p>MP Pension's decision comes as asset managers across the world review their investments in oil and gas and coal companies at a time the world is struggling to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times as agreed in Paris in 2015.</p><p>In March, Norway's <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/norways-1-trillion-wealth-fund-to-remain-invested-in-big-oil-stocks/a-47824733" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">$1 trillion asset manager</a> — the world's biggest sovereign fund — said it would shed its stakes in oil and gas explorers and producers. But the fund fell short of expectations that it would dump all its oil and gas investments for good. It said it would remain invested in Big Oil companies such as Shell, BP, Total and ExxonMobil, in which it owns significant stakes.</p><p>The Norwegian government stressed the move was based solely on financial considerations rather than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate concerns</a> and that it did not reflect any particular view of the oil industry's future prospects.</p><p>MP Pension's latest announcement is part of a decision the fund made in 2016 that its investment strategy should be aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.</p><p>But the fund's latest move is not only based on climate concerns.</p><p>"Our first and foremost concern is future investment returns," Schelde said. "The companies that we are divesting in have delivered poor returns in the past 4-5 years and we feel for the next 10-20 years they would continue to be poor."</p><h2>Sticking With Fossil Fuels</h2><p>MP Pension does not plan to completely move away from investments in fossil fuel companies.</p><p>"We are not ditching fossil fuels entirely. For example, we do not exclude companies that focus on gas because we feel gas is an intermediary fuel that we will be needing to replace for instance <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" rel="noopener noreferrer">coal</a>, which has a carbon intensity roughly double that of gas," Schelde said.</p><p>"We realize that fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix for many years, even 100 years. But we need to bring down the amount of carbon that we emit in the atmosphere."</p><p>The company has also prepared an "inclusion" list that would include fossil fuel companies making good progress toward a greener future.</p><p>"So far there are no companies on that list. It's still empty. But I hope it grows as we move forward," Schelde said.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/danish-pension-fund-dumps-oil-majors-on-climate-change-concerns/a-50288283?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a></em>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Fossil Fuel Divestment Debates on Campus Spotlight Societal Role ... ›
- Norway’s Largest Private Asset Manager Divests in Chevron, Exxon for Lobbying Against Climate Action - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump speaks to contractors at the Shell Chemicals Petrochemical Complex on Aug. 13 in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images
Thousands of union members at a multibillion dollar petrochemical plant outside of Pittsburgh were given a choice last week: Stand and wait for a speech by Donald Trump or take the day off without pay.
<p>A contractor that hires the union sent a memo that said, "Your attendance is not mandatory," but only employees who arrived by 7 a.m., scanned their ID cards and stood for hours would be paid, as the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2019/08/16/Trump-speech-union-crowd-Shell-ethane-plant-natural-gas-beaver-county-pennsylvania-attendance-pay-overtime/stories/201908160113" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a> first reported.</p><p>"NO SCAN, NO PAY," a supervisor for the contractor wrote, according to the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2019/08/16/Trump-speech-union-crowd-Shell-ethane-plant-natural-gas-beaver-county-pennsylvania-attendance-pay-overtime/stories/201908160113" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a>. The employees even had to stand through lunch, though they did not eat lunch.</p><p>The president's speech at the Royal Dutch <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shell</a> facility, where natural gas will be converted into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" rel="noopener noreferrer">plastic</a> for a wide range of products, was to focus on "America's Energy Dominance and Manufacturing Revival," so it was sponsored by the White House and paid for by taxpayer dollars. However, it quickly went off script to sound like a campaign speech.</p><p>Trump took the time to slander Democratic primary candidates, saying, "I don't think they give a damn about Western Pennsylvania, do you?" He also took credit for the construction of the Shell plant, which had first been announced under the Obama administration, telling the workers, "This would have never happened without me and us," as <a href="https://time.com/5654772/shell-union-trump-speech-no-pay/" target="_blank">TIME</a> reported.</p><p>At one point he even weighed in on the union's management, saying he would speak to them about supporting his reelection campaign. "And if they don't," said Trump to workers, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/us/politics/trump-shell-workers.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> "vote them the hell out of office, because they're not doing their job."</p><p>Contracts for the workers at the plant stipulate that to get paid, the workers must be on site. "This was treated as a paid training day with a guest speaker who happened to be the president," said Ray Fisher, a Shell spokesman, according to the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2019/08/16/Trump-speech-union-crowd-Shell-ethane-plant-natural-gas-beaver-county-pennsylvania-attendance-pay-overtime/stories/201908160113" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a>. He said workers engaged in "safety training and other activities" in the morning. Those who chose not to attend would have an excused but unpaid absence, meaning they would miss out on any overtime pay later in the week.</p><p>Essentially, union employees at the site work a 56-hour week, with 16 of those hours as overtime, which pays time and a half. Workers who showed up and attended the speech on Tuesday would have enough hours banked to receive overtime pay by Friday. Those who skipped the president's speech would only receive regular pay, despite the fact that neither group would have done any work for the plant on Tuesday.</p><p>One union leader who spoke anonymously to the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2019/08/16/Trump-speech-union-crowd-Shell-ethane-plant-natural-gas-beaver-county-pennsylvania-attendance-pay-overtime/stories/201908160113" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a> said one day of work might mean $700 in pay, benefits, and a per diem payment that out-of-town workers receive.</p><p>The contractor who hired the union also had some strict rules for how the union members should comport themselves during Trump's speech. A memo from the contractor read, "No yelling, shouting, protesting or anything viewed as resistance will be tolerated at the event. An underlying theme of the event is to promote good will from the unions. Your building trades leaders and jobs stewards have agreed to this," as the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2019/08/16/Trump-speech-union-crowd-Shell-ethane-plant-natural-gas-beaver-county-pennsylvania-attendance-pay-overtime/stories/201908160113" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a> reported.</p><p>Despite the rules, union members were bristling with anger and impatience since the event went past 3 p.m., when many of the workers' regular shift ended. The workers worried they would not get paid for the extra time they spent holding in the warehouse, as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/shell-workers-would-have-lost-pay-if-they-missed-trump-n1043756" target="_blank">NBC News</a> reported. Some of the workers tried to leave before the president had finished speaking, but the Secret Service would not let them leave until Trump had left the site.</p><p>After Trump's speech, workers were still held in the warehouse and started to boo and let out angry shouts about not being let out. A plant employee tried to calm them by reassuring the employees they would get paid for every moment they were in the plant, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/shell-workers-would-have-lost-pay-if-they-missed-trump-n1043756" target="_blank">NBC News</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BigOil?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BigOil</a> Want to Pull the Plug on the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElectricCar?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ElectricCar</a> Market <a href="https://t.co/ofehWEJFGR">https://t.co/ofehWEJFGR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CleantechMag?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CleantechMag</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/cleantechnica?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cleantechnica</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1112142580257644549?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Read More
Show Less
Indigenous Group Sues Exxon, Energy Majors Over Fracking Waste Contamination in Patagonia
18 December 2018
Popular
Fracking waste from the Vaca Muerta shale basin in Argentina being dumped into an open air pit. Greenpeace
A major indigenous group in the Argentine Patagonia is suing some of world's biggest oil and gas companies over illegal fracking waste dumps that put the "sensitive Patagonian environment," local wildlife and communities at risk, according to Greenpeace.
The Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén filed a lawsuit against Exxon, French company Total and the Argentina-based Pan American Energy (which is partially owned by BP), AFP reported. Provincial authorities and a local fracking waste treatment company called Treater Neuquén S.A. were also named in the suit.
<p>
The Mapuche accused the companies of contaminating the environment with "dangerous waste" due to "deficient treatment" close to the town of Añelo, according to AFP.
</p><p>
The waste comes from operations in the Vaca Muerta field, one of the largest deposits of shale oil and gas in the world that lies in the Neuquén province. <span></span>
</p><p>
<iframe src="https://www.ecowatch.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1074967510041022465&created_ts=1545127200.0&screen_name=afpfr&text=Des+indiens+Mapuche+ont+d%C3%A9pos%C3%A9+plainte+aupr%C3%A8s+de+la+justice+argentine+contre+cinq+compagnies+p%C3%A9troli%C3%A8res%2C+dont+le+f%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F4MqA26d1CH&id=1074967510041022465&name=Agence+France-Presse">
</iframe>
</p><p>
"We denounce the company Treater Neuquén S.A., responsible for environmental contamination with hazardous waste, for deficient treatment and disposal of the oil industry's waste," said Héctor Jorge Nawel, coordinator for the Xawvn Ko area of the Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén, in a <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/20061/investigation-shell-total-oil-illegal-toxic-waste/" target="_blank">press release</a>. "It is critical that the state authorities and oil company executives who allowed this happen be held accountable, and that our right to a healthy environment be respected."
</p><p>
On Monday, Greenpeace claimed Total and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell">Royal Dutch Shell</a> (which was not named in the lawsuit) are "dumping thousands of tonnes of toxic oil and industrial waste" from their fracking operations into illegal open waste ponds in Patagonia.
</p><p>
"The Vaca Muerta reserves house approximately 830 fracking wells, each one generating between 600 to 850 cubic meters of waste in a month of operation. To be transported to treatment plants, much of that waste must pass through cities, communities, drinking water sources, and agricultural fields," Greenpeace said.
</p><p>
<span></span>In its <a href="https://greenpeace.org.ar/ph/Our-Investigations.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> released Monday, Greenpeace said their investigators found the dumps in November 2017 and started taking samples from them in May.
</p><p>
The environmental organization also released <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceArg/status/1074688894489296897" target="_blank">video footage</a> that purportedly shows trucks servicing Argentina's YPF, Shell and Total dumping toxic waste from fracking into pits.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c4fbe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="HXT54H1576662599"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1074688894489296897" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">¡CON LAS MANOS EN LA MASA! Descubrimos camiones en #VacaMuerta tirando desechos tóxicos del fracking en piletones i… https://t.co/xlksmbsFQZ</div> — Greenpeace Argentina (@Greenpeace Argentina)<a href="https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceArg/statuses/1074688894489296897">1545060773.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
Some of the pits, including one that's almost reached the size of "15 football fields," are only 5 kilometers (approximately 3 miles) away from homes and families, Greenpeace said.
</p><p>
"The way these oil companies operate is pure environmental vandalism and demonstrates how little control local authorities truly have," said Paul Horsman, spokesperson for Greenpeace Andino's climate and energy campaign, in the press release. "Oil-soaked soils and polluted air may be business as usual for companies like Shell and Total, but the government of Argentina cannot afford to continue putting oil industry profits before the health of its communities. With climate scientists warning that the world <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-ipcc-report-2610866229.html">has just 12 years</a> to cut fossil fuel use by 50 percent, it is madness to spend billions of dollars fracking Patagonia into oblivion."
</p><p>In response to the report, Pan American Energy told Greenpeace they have no contractual relationship with Treater, the fracking waste company. However, the company is listed as a client on Treater's website.
</p><p>
Treater also told Greenpeace that its operations are legal. Shell acknowledged a relationship with Treater, but said that the authorities are responsible for oversight. Total has requested a meeting with Greenpeace.
</p><p>
None of the other companies named in the Mapuche lawsuit have commented, according to AFP.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c8a5e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7MJ4D31576662599"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1073169453385424896" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Unacceptable. The Trump administration offered more than 150,000 acres of public lands for fossil-fuel extraction n… https://t.co/ojy4tVSyta</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1073169453385424896">1544698510.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A healthy vegan snack board of fruit, vegetables, dips, nuts and olives. Enrique Díaz / 7cero / Getty Images
By Chloë Waterman
As the Trump administration's dangerous deregulatory agenda leads us closer to climate catastrophe, cities, counties and businesses are stepping up to address the crisis. Last month, Gov. Jerry Brown and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released their "Fulfilling America's Pledge" plan, laying out the top climate strategies for subnational governments and businesses, at the Global Climate Action Summit.
<p>Unfortunately, their high-profile report omitted a major solution and a big component of the climate crisis: <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/">food</a> consumption.</p><p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">Agriculture</a> produces an astounding <a href="http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/2_Garnett_Carbon_Emissions_and_Food_Miles.pdf" target="_blank">one-third</a> of all global greenhouse gas emissions. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption">Meat</a> and dairy alone generate about <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf" target="_blank">half</a> of those food-related emissions—more than the combined tailpipe discharges from every plane, train, car, bus and boat around the world. We simply cannot meet our emissions reduction goals if we do not address meat and dairy consumption, even if all 10 strategies in the America's Pledge plan are successful. High meat-consuming countries like the U.S. must lead the way.</p><p>Combined, the world's top five meat and dairy companies <a href="https://www.iatp.org/new-research-shows-industrial-livestock-industry-creating-climate-crisis" target="_blank">create more emissions</a> than <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell">Shell</a> or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp">BP</a>. According to a July <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible" target="_blank">report</a> from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and GRAIN, only two of the top 35 meat and dairy companies have made robust commitments to reduce their supply chain emissions. None of the nine U.S. companies on the list—Tyson Foods, Cargill, Hormel Foods, Perdue Farms and others—even report their supply chain emissions. </p><p>These nine companies produce most of their meat in Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia—states lacking progressive climate policies. However, the majority of their consumers live in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities. As centers of consumption, cities must confront their role in driving <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">factory farming</a>. </p><p>That's why a coalition of 45 public health and environmental organizations wrote an <a href="https://medium.com/@foodandclimatecoalition/how-we-are-still-in-cities-and-counties-can-include-food-in-climate-action-e67f54f88f5a" target="_blank">open letter</a> to the 280 cities and counties that are members of <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com" target="_blank">We Are Still In Coalition</a>, urging them to incorporate meat and dairy reduction into their climate strategies.</p><p>Project Drawdown—a climate change mitigation project initiated by Paul Hawken and worked on by a team of more than 200 scholars, scientists, policymakers and activists—names "plant-rich diet" as the fourth most impactful climate mitigation strategy, just after reducing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/food-waste">food waste</a>, a related strategy also omitted by America's Pledge.</p><p> The most direct way cities, counties, universities and school districts can shift diets is by leveraging their massive purchasing power to buy more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian">plant-based foods</a>, measurably reducing their carbon footprint and improving health. For example, public schools serve seven <em>billion</em> meals a year. If every single public school swapped out a beef burger for a protein-rich veggie burger on the school lunch menu just once a month, it would save 1,407,533,657 pounds of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, the equivalent of over 1.5 billion fewer miles driven.<br></p><p>In addition to public institutions slashing meat from their menus, the food industry must step up to the climate action plate. A <a href="http://www.mightyearth.org/meat-scorecard" target="_blank">recent report</a> from Mighty Earth found that 19 of the 23 top U.S. food companies have no commitments for mitigating the environmental impacts of their meat supply. Large restaurant chains, grocery retailers and foodservice management companies like <a href="https://www.realmealscampaign.org/" target="_blank">Aramark, Sodexo and Compass Group</a> should be tracking and reducing their supply chain carbon footprints and moving to plant-forward menus. </p><p> Climate-friendly diets are not only a high impact strategy—they are also cost-effective, making them an obvious place for cities, counties and businesses to focus their climate mitigation efforts. For example, a <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/research/clf_publications/pub_rep_desc/balanced_menu.html" target="_blank">pilot analysis</a> of Health Care Without Harm's "Balanced Menus: Less Meat Better Meat" program found that four San Francisco Bay Area hospitals collectively saved about $400,000 per year. A 2017 <a href="https://foe.org/resources/shrinking-carbon-water-footprint-school-food/" target="_blank">analysis</a> from Friends of the Earth found that Oakland Unified School District saved $42,000 (and improved student meal satisfaction) by reducing the meat and dairy on their menus by 30 percent. </p><p>The Global Climate Action Summit took small steps toward realizing the value of shifting diets by announcing a new initiative to cut food sector emissions by 25 percent by 2030, including "Climate-friendly Diets" in its <a href="https://climatelandchallenge.org/" target="_blank">30x30 Forests, Food, and Land Challenge</a> and even serving plant-forward cuisine. Following the summit, California took a step of its own when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill making California the first state to require plant-based options in health care facilities and state prisons. </p><p>At the international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's <a href="https://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/pr_181008_P48_spm.shtml" target="_blank">report</a> released last week warned that the window for fending off the worst impacts of climate change is closing quickly and recommended "[limiting] demand for greenhouse-gas intensive foods through shifts to healthier and more sustainable diets." Yet, in contrast, America's Pledge missed a huge opportunity by omitting food consumption from the "Fulfilling America's Pledge" plan. </p><p>If we truly want to fulfill America's pledge and solve the climate crisis, we must move away from meat- and dairy-intensive diets. Cities, counties, states, businesses, universities, school districts and hospitals can lead the way by shifting toward plant-forward foods to change the main course of climate change and help rescue our ailing planet.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="22ef3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="Z9BFO01576661894"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="983457106627096577" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Going Vegan Is the Best Thing You Can Do for the Planet, New Study Proves https://t.co/M1vtznpcll @ForksOverKnives @TheVeganSociety</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/983457106627096577">1523309420.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Chloë Waterman serves as senior food campaigner at <a href="https://foe.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth U.S.</a> where she implements policy and markets campaigns to advance a sustainable and just food system.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Portland Head Lighthouse in South Portland, Maine. traveler1116 / Getty Images
The city of South Portland, Maine has won an important victory in a three-year legal battle to stop a pipeline company from offloading tar sands crude oil on its waterfront, after a judge ruled Friday that the city's ordinance against the activity was constitutional, The Portland Press Herald reported.
Portland Pipe Line Corp. had wanted to reverse the flow of its pipeline from South Portland to Montreal as demand for foreign crude fell and Canadian tar sands production took off, but the city council blocked that move with a "Clear Skies" ordinance in 2014.
<p style="">"Faced with the prospect of hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil being loaded onto marine tank vessels in the city and threatening the health of the residents and preventing redevelopment of the waterfront, the City Council prohibited this new activity," South Portland Mayor Linda Cohen said in a statement reported by The Portland Press Herald. "We are pleased that the court upheld the ordinance."</p><p style="">Portland Pipe Line Corp. had argued the ordinance was unconstitutional, saying it violated the Dormant Commerce and Foreign Commerce clauses of the Constitution that give Congress the power to regulate international and interstate trade, but U.S. District Court Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. ruled that was not the case.</p><p style="">The company could still decide to appeal the ruling, but environmental law experts think the case could serve as a model for other communities standing up to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil" target="_self">big oil</a>.</p><p style="">"For other communities looking at opposing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> infrastructure, this case is a blueprint for how you should do it," Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/tar-sands-pipeline-court-ruling-south-portland-ban-public-health-constitutional-big-oil-maine" target="_blank">Inside Climate News</a>. "It's a strong opinion, and it could result in a really significant precedent for local control on petroleum-based industries."</p><p style="">South Portland was in part able to pass the ordinance because Maine has a "home rule authority" that allows municipalities to go beyond state law to protect their communities' health and well-being. </p><p style="">Fellow Vermont Law School professor Ken Rumelt told Inside Climate News that the ruling was "a powerful tool" for other communities. "It says that a community, assuming there is no state law preempting what they're trying to do, can say no, we don't want to suffer these impacts," he said.</p><p style="">The pipeline company, a Canadian subsidiary of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_self">Shell</a> and Suncor Energy, first sued to stop the ordinance in 2015, according to The Portland Press Herald. </p><p style="">Friday's decision came after a four-day trial in June, in which the company argued that there were almost no new foreign deliveries to the port and that their survival as a business depended on reversing the pipeline. </p><p style="">The city council, meanwhile, partly passed the ordinance because the company's pipeline-reversal plan included two 70-foot-high smokestacks near a waterfront park that would have emitted pollutants while burning compounds off of the crude before loading it into tankers.</p><p style="">Supporters of the ordinance also said that tar sands oil was more dangerous to load onto tankers and move through <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipelines</a>, and more difficult to clean up in the case of an <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill" target="_self">oil spill</a>, The Portland Press Herald reported.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b753d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7LL1FJ1576662660"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="998883711574855680" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Environmental Groups Vow to Block Tar Sands Oil Project: 'We Are Going to Not Allow Kinder Morgan to Finish This Pi… https://t.co/5Wy9wUQe81</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/998883711574855680">1526987409.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Artem Hvozdkov / Getty Images
On Thursday, July 19 The Hill reported that the Republican controlled Congress passed a non-binding resolution saying a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions "would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States."
<p>But the next Monday, a Republican duo introduced and co-sponsored the <a href="https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ewbmisc001_xml.pdf" target="_blank">MARKET CHOICE Act (H.R. 6463)</a> that would implement a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/carbon-tax" target="_self">carbon tax</a> and funnel the proceeds towards improving infrastructure. </p><p>The two approaches, <a href="http://time.com/5348333/republicans-climate-change-carbon-tax/" target="_blank">Time Magazine</a> reported Thursday, could represent the past and future of the Republican party. </p><p>"The pendulum will swing," former Republican South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis, who heads the non-profit <a href="http://www.republicen.org/" target="_blank">RepublicEn</a>, which promotes conservative solutions for environmental problems, told Time. "And when that pendulum swings…it may just be the solution you don't want on climate."</p><p>The two congressmen who introduced and co-sponsored the carbon tax bill could be the beginning of that swing. </p><p>Carlos Curbelo, the Florida Representative who introduced the bill, represents a district stretching from Key West to outside Miami. </p><p>He has been a unique Republican voice on the reality and threat of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a> since he was first elected in 2014, according to <a href="https://grist.org/grist-50/profile/carlos-curbelo/" target="_blank">Grist</a>. </p><p>"I tell my skeptical colleagues: When my district is underwater, I'll move to their district and run against them," he told Grist. "That usually breaks the ice."</p><p>He formed the bipartisan <a href="https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/" target="_blank">Climate Solutions Caucus</a> with fellow Floridian and Democratic Congressperson Ted Deutch, which is designed to have an even number of Republican and Democrat members. </p><p>As of now, Time reports it has 43 Republican members, even though many still vote against climate action despite claiming to believe in its necessity. </p><p>"We're seeing trends in the House that should give us all hope," Curbelo told Time.</p><p>The bill's co-sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted in line with the environment 71 percent of the time in 2017 according to the <a href="http://origin.lcv.org/" target="_blank">League of Conservation Voters</a>' scorecard, the highest percentage of any Congressional Republican, <a href="https://grist.org/article/meet-6-house-republicans-who-could-get-behind-a-carbon-tax/" target="_blank">Grist reported</a>. </p><p>One reason a carbon tax might be a gateway climate proposal for Republicans is that it is actually favored by companies who see climate policy as inevitable, and prefer a tax to more complicated regulations, Time explained. </p><p>On Wednesday, 34 major companies including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp" target="_self">BP</a> America, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_self">Shell</a> and General Motors <a href="https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/curbelo_letter_market_choice_act_thank_you.pdf" target="_blank">wrote a letter</a> to Curbelo thanking him for introducing the bill, though they did not endorse it outright. </p><p>"We believe that an economy-wide, market-based approach to valuing or pricing carbon, when carefully crafted, can both strengthen our economy and reduce carbon emissions by encouraging technological innovation and stimulating new investments in infrastructure, products, and services," the letter said.</p><p>Curbelo's current bill is not likely to pass, given the opinions of the rest of the Republican majority in Congress, but it might model a way forward for the party in the future. Time reported two polls by the Alliance of Market Solutions and the Pew Research Center respectively that showed that more than half of younger Republicans care about climate change and that almost 25 percent of people under 30 who identified as Republican in 2015 had since left the party. </p><p>However, Emilie Prattico, director of development at <a href="https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/" target="_blank">We Mean Business</a>, a private-sector climate mobilization non-profit, cautioned in a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-prattico-curbelo-carbon-tax_us_5b58a52ce4b0b15aba9473f5" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a> opinion piece that carbon tax supporters could do better than Curbelo's bill.</p><p>While it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 27 to 32 percent by 2025 and 30 to 40 percent by 2030, its other provisions would not go far enough to adequately address climate change. </p><p>It would devote as much as 70 percent of generated revenue to updating existing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil-fuel</a>-based transportation infrastructure and only a small percent to developing carbon-free transport options and it would allow emitters a chance to perform their way out of having to obey Clean Air Act regulations if they followed the law.</p><p>"A successful carbon tax bill, whether it is proposed by Democrats, Republicans or both, would not only impose a levy on fossil fuels but steer the economy toward innovation, less-polluting alternatives for high-emitting sectors, and fairness to consumers and citizens," Prattico wrote. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A train at Metro-North Railroad's Croton-Harmon station, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy on Oct. 30, 2012. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York / CC BY 2.0
A federal judge ruled on Thursday in favor of a motion by five big oil companies to dismiss a lawsuit brought against them by New York City, which demanded they pay the costs of adapting the city's infrastructure to climate change, The New York Times reported.
The ruling comes nearly a month after a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a similar case brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco.
<p>In his decision Thursday, Judge John F. Keenan of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York echoed the reasoning of Federal Judge William Alsup when he dismissed the San Francisco and Oakland case.</p><p>While both judges acknowledged the reality of climate change, they thought that crafting policy around it was too large an issue for the courts to settle.</p><p>"Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government," Keenan wrote in his <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/91-nyc-climate-lawsuit-decision/9dd09306b7148fac9ae3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">decision</a>. </p><p>But environmentalists pointed out that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> companies like the defendants had done everything in their power to stop the other branches of government from acting.</p><p>"There is a grave irony here. The fossil fuel company defendants claimed in court—and the judge apparently agreed—that it is entirely up to Congress and the President to address climate change. But these same defendants and their trade groups have fought successfully against even modest laws and regulations to cut the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that causes global warming," <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> President Ken Kimmel <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2018/new-york-city-climate-lawsuit-dismissal-leaves-taxpayers-alone-shoulder-massive-climate#.W1E7RdhKg8b" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> reported by <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/19/new-york-city-climate-suit-john-keenan/" target="_blank">Climate Liability News</a>.</p><p>Like San Francisco, New York City spokesperson Seth Stein said the city would appeal the decision. </p><p>"The mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New York City. We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change," he told The New York Times. </p><p>The city had argued that the defendants―<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chevron" target="_self">Chevron</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conocophillips" target="_self">ConocoPhillips</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp" target="_self">BP</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_self">Royal Dutch Shell</a>―had known about the risks posed by burning fossil fuels since the 1950s and had "engaged in an overt public relations campaign intended to cast doubt on climate science," an argument Keenan acknowledged in his decision. </p><p>The cases brought by New York, San Francisco, Oakland and other municipalities attempt to sue oil companies using state public nuisance law that allows courts to find defendants liable for interfering with the use of property, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Attempts to sue oil companies over climate change under federal nuisance law led to a Supreme Court decision in 2011 ruling that the Clean Air Act displaced nuisance law on the federal level and put the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_blank">EPA</a>) in charge of dealing with the issue.</p><p>The new batch of lawsuits argues state nuisance law still applies, but Keenan rejected the idea that state law would apply to the city's lawsuit, saying climate change was an area of "federal concern," The New York Times reported.</p><p>However, environmental law experts said judges trying similar cases in state courts might rule differently. </p><p>"The cases that are either filed in federal court or—as with the San Francisco and Oakland cases—removed to federal court are decided under federal law," University of California Los Angeles environmental law professor Ann Carlson told Climate Liability News. "Federal nuisance law is much less favorable for the cities and counties than state law is. The state courts are where we are likely to see interesting and perhaps surprising rulings."</p><p>There are currently similar cases pending in courts in California, Washington, Colorado and Rhode Island, Climate Liability News reported.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="25b02" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="B7I3O21576662662"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1011626717054668800" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Judge Throws Out Historic Climate Liability Cases Brought by Oakland and San Francisco https://t.co/uWjK3UJaNg… https://t.co/xKX1zFKNTL</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1011626717054668800">1530025579.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Judge Throws Out Historic Climate Liability Cases Brought by Oakland and San Francisco
26 June 2018
Popular
San Francisco and the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. Doc Searls / CC BY 2.0
In a blow to the climate liability movement, Federal Judge William Alsup on Monday threw out a trendsetting lawsuit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against the five biggest fossil-fuel producing companies, The New York Times reported.
The two Bay Area cities were the first major U.S. cities to sue big oil over the costs of adapting to climate change, but other cities and counties around the country, including New York, Boulder and Seattle's King County, have followed their lead for a current total of 11 such lawsuits on the books.
<p>Alsup, of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, stemmed the tide of the movement with his decision, ruling that the courts were not the appropriate place to decide issues relating to climate change. </p><p>"The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Alsup wrote in his opinion, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Alsup acknowledged the scientific consensus surrounding human-caused climate change and agreed that it posed a significant risk to the planet, but did not think it was ultimately fair to hold the defendants―<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chevron" target="_self">Chevron</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conocophillips" target="_self">ConocoPhillips</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp" target="_self">BP</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_self">Royal Dutch Shell</a>―responsible for supplying a global demand for energy that had transformed the modern world.</p><p>"Would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?" he asked in the statement.</p><p>"This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn't mean the case is over," San Francisco city attorney spokesperson John Coté told The New York Times. "We're reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly."</p><p>Coté added that the case had already been a success in at least one respect: It had led Alsup to order a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chevron-lawsuit-california-climate-science-2551250987.html" target="_self">historic court tutorial</a> in March in which climate science experts testified about the proof for anthropogenic global warming.</p><p>"We're pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute," he said. "Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they've caused."</p><p>Chevron was predictably pleased with the results. </p><p>"Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity," vice president and general counsel for Chevron R. Hewitt Pate told The New York Times.</p><p>Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told The New York Times it was too soon to tell if Alsup's decision would influence judges hearing similar cases around the country. </p><p>The cities had filed their suits against the companies using public nuisance law. In previous federal cases concerning climate change, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act superseded nuisance law at the federal level and that it was up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to deal with such complaints. </p><p>Oakland and San Francisco had tried to file public nuisance suits at the state level, while the defendants tried to move the cases to federal courts. Alsup decided the two cities' suits should be tried federally, but the federal judge reviewing the climate liability cases brought by Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach moved them to state courts.</p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pope Urges Oil Companies to Lead Clean Energy Transition in Unprecedented Vatican Conference
11 June 2018
Energy
Pixabay
Pope Francis urged the leaders of big oil companies to see the light on climate change at a first-of-its kind conference held at the Vatican with oil executives, investors and Vatican experts, The Guardian reported Saturday.
"Civilisation requires energy, but energy use must not destroy civilisation," the pope said during remarks at the end of the conference, according to The Guardian.
<p>The current pope, who has emerged as a leader in the fight against climate change following his groundbreaking <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html" target="_blank">2015 encyclical,</a> urged the companies to lead the transition towards <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> and away from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>. </p><p>He said they should strive "to be the core of a group of leaders who envision the global energy transition in a way that will take into account all the peoples of the earth, as well as future generations and all species and ecosystems," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/europe/pope-oil-executives-climate-change.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. </p><p>The pope also spoke with a great sense of urgency about the coming crisis. "There is no time to lose," he said, according to The New York Times. </p><p>"Will we turn the corner in time? No one can answer that with certainty," the pope said. "But with each month that passes, the challenge of energy transition becomes more pressing."</p><p>The meeting, held Saturday behind closed doors at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, included big names in the oil industry like the chairman of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">Exxon Mobil</a>, the chief executive of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp" target="_self">BP</a>, the chief executive of the Italian energy company Eni and representatives of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_blank">Royal Dutch Shell</a>, Norway's Equinor and Mexico's Pemex, according to The New York Times and the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44424572" target="_blank">BBC</a>. </p><p>In recent years, oil companies have switched from outright hostility to climate science to taking action on climate change. Exxon Mobil, for example, who <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-exposed-for-spending-millions-on-climate-change-denial-1882070620.html" target="_self">funded climate denial think tanks</a> between 1998 and 2005 to the tune of $16 million, has since endorsed the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a>. </p><p>But while the pope commended companies for the efforts they are making, he also said those efforts did not go far enough. </p><p>Pope Francis also focused on the social justice aspects of climate change, saying it would harm the poor disproportionately, and that clean energy was essential to bringing people out of poverty without disrupting the climate they depend upon. </p><p>"Our desire to ensure energy for all must not lead to the undesired effect of a spiral of extreme climate changes due to a catastrophic rise in global temperatures, harsher environments and increased levels of poverty," he said, according to The Guardian. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less