Environmental organizers busy laying plans for the People’s Climate March
If everything goes according to plan, the People’s Climate March could be the largest climate demonstration in the United States to date. On September 20 and 21, waves of citizens will descend on New York City to show public support for the UN "Solutions Summit" and to demand immediate action to staunch greenhouse gas emissions. I'll be joining them — traveling with a group of protesters on a train from Washington, DC to New York as I cover the march for Earth Island Journal — and last week I attended an organizing meeting in DC to see what I should expect.
Photo by Bjorn Philip Beer
As I arrived in the capital, a few big questions occupied my mind. How will this march be different from past climate-related mobilizations? Can this effort succeed in moving the needle of elite and public opinion? Will it lead to drastic emissions reductions?
What is different about the People’s Climate March became apparent the moment the crowded meeting began. The gathering took place in the basement of the Martin Luther King Jr. Library, just one stop on an “Organizers Tour” that is traveling up the East Coast spreading the word about the march Paul Revere-style. The assembled group was as varied as it was large. I expected a young crowd, yet there were dozens of silver-haired retirees. Some attendees were policy wonks at major environmental organizations who wanted to participate in a more hands-on way. Others were activist types who had recently been arrested in non-violent direct actions in the DC area. For every seasoned activist I spoke with, there was someone who was taking to the streets for the first time in their lives.
The diversity of this organizers' meeting is mirrored at the national level. Paul Getsos spoke on behalf of the organizing committee for the national People’s Climate March and described a broad coalition of groups that has already emerged. As of this writing, 150 leaders in the faith community in New York have committed to turning out their congregations. Although labor and enviros have their occasional differences, 20 labor unions have already pledged to put boots on the ground. I …more
Industry lobbying boils over in bid to block labeling of genetically engineered food
Companies and organizations opposed to labeling foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients disclosed $9 million in lobbying expenditures that made reference to GE labeling in the first quarter of 2014 – nearly as much as they spent in all of 2013.
The burst of lobbying by food and biotechnology companies was partly designed to muster Congressional support for legislation that would block states from requiring GE labeling on food packages. That bill, dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act by advocates of GE labeling, was introduced on April 9 by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.).
In May, Vermont became the first state to enact legislation to require GE labeling, although industry has filed suit in an effort to block it. Connecticut and Maine have passed GE labeling laws that would go into effect if other northeastern states pass similar legislation.
Food and biotechnology companies and organizations disclosed $9.3 million in lobbying expenditures in 2013 that made reference to GE labeling and $9 million in the first quarter of 2014 alone. The forms cite lobbying on GE labeling as well as other policy issues.
In particular, the Grocery Manufacturers Association disclosed $1.2 million in lobbying expenditures that made reference to GE labeling in the first quarter of 2014. The Association's member organizations separately disclosed another $4.3 million in lobbying expenditures that made reference to GE labeling in the first quarter, including $3.9 million by beverage giants Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
Food industry lobbying in Congress dwarfed that of supporters of GE labeling, who disclosed $1.6 million in lobbying expenditures that made reference to GE labeling in 2013 and just over $400,000 in the first quarter of this year – just one-eighth as much as the opponents. Advocates of GE labeling are supporting legislation introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that would require GE labeling nationwide.
Several companies that produce genetically engineered seeds and herbicides – including Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences – did not report lobbying specifically on either piece of legislation on their 2013 disclosure forms or in the first quarter of 2014. Instead, their reports …more
Starting this fall, nuclear power could once again be part of Japan’s long-term energy mix
For most of the three-and-a-half years since the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant forced over 150,000 people from their homes and overturned the broader population’s faith in the “myth of nuclear safety,” the country’s 48 nuclear reactors have stood idle. This is not a sign that Japan has taken a fundamental turn away from nuclear power, as Germany has. Rather, the past several years have been a kind of probation period, during which both government and industry have scrambled to apply the “lessons of Fukushima” well enough to restart at least some reactors with renewed assurances of safety. Now, that is on the verge of happening.
Photo courtesy IAEA Imagebank
Earlier this month, Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) gave a preliminary nod of approval to the restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant in Kagoshima Prefecture, on Kyushu island about 600 miles southwest of Tokyo. The draft decision is in response to an application from Kyushu Electric, the plant operator, claiming it has made enough changes to meet new safety standards implemented after the Fukushima disaster. However, several steps remain before Sendai’s two reactors can be turned back on: a month-long public comment period, final approval from the NRA, and agreement from local politicians. All this looks likely to proceed smoothly – which means that by this fall, nuclear power could once again be part of the country’s long-term energy mix.
The critical question, of course, is whether Japan has truly grasped the lessons of Fukushima. Is the Sendai plant safe? If an accident does happen, will the local population be able to escape unharmed? Has the government made the institutional changes necessary to even answer those questions competently? Long-time anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith argues the answer is “no” on all counts.
“The NRA is not following its own guidelines, and in other areas it hasn’t put into place proper regulations. The decision-making process to assure safety is very vague, and who takes final responsibility is completely vague,” says Smith, who directs the citizen’s organization Green Action Japan. Indeed, NRA chairman Shunichi Tanaka has repeatedly emphasized that his organization’s role is not to ensure safety, but merely to …more
Communities in southeast and southwest Alaska face the highest risk, says NOOA-led report
Keeping Alaska’s fisheries wild and sustainable is going to be a serious challenge in the years ahead as our oceans become more acidic, and that in turn, is going put many Alaskans’ subsistence way of life at risk, says a new report.
Many of the nutritionally and economically valuable marine fisheries in the state are located in waters that are already experiencing ocean acidification, says the report, “Ocean Acidification Risk Assessment for Alaska’s Fishery Sector” that was published online today in the journal Progress in Oceanography.
Photo by Meg J/Flick
“How bad is it? The short answer is, we don’t know,” says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oceanographer Jeremy Mathis, one of the lead writers of the report, which was coauthored by researchers from the University of Alaska and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Alaska has one of the most productive commercial fishing economies in the world. The state’s fishing industry supports more than 100,000 jobs and brings in roughly $5 billion a year in revenue. Think: pollock, Bristol Bay’s famous sockeye salmon, and crab from the Bering Sea. Apart from that, about 17 percent of Alaskans (around 120,000 people) rely on subsistence fishing for most, if not all, of their dietary protein. Fishery-related tourism also brings in $300 million annually.
The state’s fisheries management model — with its focus on sustained yields and public participation in the regulatory process — is widely recognized as an example of successful natural resource stewardship. But now climate change is posing new and unknown challenges to this model.
The impact of ocean acidification is far worse in Alaska’s waters because the coastal waters here are cold, and cold water can absorb more carbon dioxide, Mathis told the Earth Island Journal. Also, unique ocean circulation patterns in the region bring naturally acidic deep ocean waters to the surface here. The study focused on assessing the impact on Alaska Native communities because “the fisheries really are the lifelines of these communities,” Mathis says. “We want to start thinking about the implications and help them figure out what they can do to prepare for what’s coming.”
The researchers say that red king crab and tanner crab — two important Alaskan fisheries — grow more slowly and don't survive as well in …more
Coal mining on public lands could wipe out power plant reforms, Greenpeace report finds
A report published today by Greenpeace highlights a growing contradiction in government policies on one of the dirtiest of fossil fuels: coal. In June, the Obama administration announced a plan to crack down on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, the federal Bureau of Land Management has continued to quietly lease publicly owned coal seams to mining corporations at deeply discounted prices. These rock-bottom rates have helped drive a push for expanded exports of American coal, and they risk wiping out the benefits of President Obama's new greenhouse gas controls.
Photo by eastcoalfax/Flickr
"Without major changes, the federal coal leasing program will continue to undermine federal, state, and international efforts to reduce carbon pollution," said the report, Leasing Coal, Fueling Climate Change.
The president's power plant rules are expected to cut 500-million metric tons of climate-changing carbon dioxide a year by 2030. But the Greenpeace report concluded that under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management has leased 2.2 billion tons of coal on public lands, roughly equivalent to more than 3.9 billion metric tons of carbon when burned. About 98 percent of the leases are on public land in just two states — Wyoming and Montana, home to the massive Power River Basin coal deposits.
"This [climate change] is a huge crisis that the president of the United States has said we're working to address, and at the same time you have this relatively low-profile program that is undermining these larger goals," said Joe Smyth, a Greenpeace spokesperson.
The Obama administration has touted the climate change mitigation benefits of America's recent shale gas rush, noting that, when burned, natural gas releases only half as much CO2 as coal. But the president's all-of-the-above energy policy — which has promoted the development of shale oil, shale gas and coal alongside renewables — risks a double-whammy for the climate. Not only does natural gas development cause leaks of methane (another powerful greenhouse gas, which some scientists warn may make burning natural gas worse for the climate than relying on coal), but much of the coal that was burned domestically in the past is now being shipped abroad, where its low price could undermine …more
In celebration of the Wilderness Act’s 50th anniversary
Ah, summertime — the season for getaways to the great outdoors. Maybe that means a lazy float trip down the Russian River, a weekend at the beach, or camping at the nearest state park. If you're especially intrepid, getting away might involve strapping on a pack and striking out into one of California's 149 designated wilderness areas.
Photo by V.H.S./Flickr
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act. The watershed law established a legal definition of wilderness as an area that retains its "primeval character" and where "the imprint of man's work [is] substantially unnoticeable." Today, some 110 million acres of land across the United States are protected as wilderness, an achievement unmatched anywhere else in the world.
Yet the wilderness ideal is also experiencing unprecedented challenges. The strains of accommodating 7 billion people on Earth are making wilderness areas and other preserves ever more isolated. The far-reaching effects of global climate change are disrupting the natural cycles of even the most remote places. The tug of our technologies requires extra effort to disconnect from the noise of civilization.
It has become fashionable in environmentalist circles to say that the garden, rather than the wilderness, offers the best metaphor for understanding how humans can coexist with the rest of nature. As a co-founder of San Francisco's largest urban farm, I agree the garden supplies a bounty of teachable moments about environmental sustainability. And I also agree with the poet Gary Snyder's observation that "wilderness can be a ferocious teacher." A foray into the remote wilderness — whether for a single night or an entire week — offers a unique wisdom found nowhere else.
For starters, the wild provides a crash course in humility. Go beyond road's end to where the motor and the engine cannot reach, and you'll be reminded of the self-flattery of human technology. The presence of other apex predators — mountain lions, bears, wolves — is a bracing tonic, evidence of how the wild naturally resists human desires. In the wilderness, we're forced to consider that we're not as all-knowing and as all-powerful as we may think, and that we should be more cautious in believing we can (or should) …more
Will new DOT regulations prevent another oil by rail disaster?
Who is responsible for the series of oil train derailments and accidents that have occurred recently? A little more than one year since a train derailed in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people and destroying more than 40 buildings, this seemingly simple question remains at the heart of efforts to improve oil by rail safety. On Wednesday the Obama administration issued proposed changes to an industry that has, until now, operated with little oversight. The “Proposed Rulemaking” would gradually phase out the DOT 111 rail car, widely acknowledge as inadequate for the transport of highly flammable materials like Bakken crude; reduce “high-hazard flammable train” speeds to 40 mph; and require increased testing and sampling of mined gases and liquids. “Today’s proposal represents our most significant progress yet in developing and enforcing new rules to ensure that all flammable liquids, including Bakken crude and ethanol, are transported safely,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a press release.
Photo by Photo: Steve Poulin/Agence QMI/Creative Commons Licence
The new rules were issued along with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s long awaited analysis of Bakken crude oil, known as Operation Classification. According to a Department of Transportation press release, “The data show that crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils.” Though the DOT’s proposed regulations address the risks posed by the transport of shale oil and gas, they don’t go nearly far enough, according to several environmental organizations. Earthjustice, ForestEthics, and the Sierra Club recently filed a legal petition asking the Department of Transportation to issue an emergency ban on the use of DOT 111 rail cars to ship Bakken crude.
“These are the heaviest, most dangerous trains on American tracks and they now pass through nearly every downtown in North America,” ForestEthics said in a press release. “The worst of these oil tanker cars are unsafe at any …more