350 Updates

Let us count the many ways Joe Nocera is wrong on Keystone XL

Daniel Kessler
Posted by Daniel Kessler - 04/25/13, 3:47pm

Joe Nocera of the New York Times is back with another column in support of Keystone XL. I counted 4 errors or willful oversights in Nocera's piece, although I'm sure I missed some. Let's review.

1. Speaking about KXL's importance: "Energy independence is a long-sought national goal. We would no longer need OPEC, a cartel of countries with values, in many cases, antithetical to ours."

First, it remains unclear how "energy independence" can be achieved by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and the corporations that supply them. Exxon made $45 billion last year; its CEO Rex Tillerson made $100,000 a day by supplying our fossil fuel addiction. If Joe wants to keep lining their pockets and strengthening their grip over our democracy that's his deal, but you can't argue in favor of independence if you want to keep a supplier from whom you can't shake loose. Second, no one that I know of seriously thinks that the Keystone XL export pipeline would lead to us no longer needing OPEC. The only way to do that is to drop Big Oil and petro states once and for all. And the only way to do that is to get serious about green energy, which Nocera treats like a punch line. I wonder if they are laughing in Iowa now that they are getting 25% of their electricity from wind? 

2. "That oil is coming here anyway -- by rail and boat, where spills are common, and via pipelines that are older, and hence less safe, than Keystone would be."

On spills, one word: Arkansas. Oh, and every major export pipeline in Canada is under heavy scrutiny and suffers from huge public opposition. Even under the most rosy scenarios, none of these pipelines will be built any time soon. In fact, Alberta is so nervous about the pipeline proposals being blocked that it recently started looking into the possibility of exporting oil all the way up at the port at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., a.k.a way the heck up there. On the rail question, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told Reuters yesterday, "It (rail) is a good supplement but not the longer-term solution...I don't think anybody would suggest it is." He doesn't know Joe Nocera!

3. "Notwithstanding the development of alternative energy sources, the world is going to continue to need oil; Oliver, quoting the International Energy Agency, says that global energy demand is expected to grow by at least 35 percent over the next 20 years."

Nope, enviros don't think that pixie dust will fuel our cars any time soon. But the US is using less oil this year than we did last year, and less oil last year than the year before that. The question is do we want to lock in 40-50 years of oil addiction with Keystone or get serious about dropping fossil fuels once and for all?

Also, while Nocera quotes from the IEA, he neglects to mention that the IEA also said that we need to leave a full 2/3s of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we are to avoid runaway climate change. It would be funny how he leaves that part out of IEA's findings if climate change was funny at all.

4. "The notion, pushed by environmentalists, that blocking the oil sands will spur green energy is delusion." 

Nope, don't know anyone who says that. Not a one. Think that's called a straw man argument. Anyway, what enviros say is that committing to more oil reduces incentives to invest in green energy. I think it's called supply and demand. Not sure, but Nocera is a business columnist. Maybe he can tell me.

 
Comments

Ten U.S. Cities Now On Board with Fossil Fuel Divestment!

Jamie Henn
Posted by Jamie Henn - 04/25/13, 12:35pm

We’re excited to announce today that ten U.S. cities are now on board with fossil fuel divestment! They include: Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, Berkeley, CA, Richmond, CA, Boulder, CO, Bayfield, WI, Madison, WI, State College, PA, Eugene, OR, and Ithaca, NY. 

Last fall, Seattle started the trend when Mayor Mike McGinn committed to keep his city funds out of fossil fuel companies and push the city’s $2 billion pension fund to pursue divestment. 
 
Then, last week, Ithaca, NY became the first East Coast city to commit to divestment. Ithaca’s Mayor, 26-year old Mayor Svante Myrick, is one of the youngest mayors and youngest African-Americans elected in US history. He agreed to pursue divestment after meeting with a group of local high school students who urged him to act in order to protect their future. 
 
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco followed suit, voting unanimously to urge the city’s $16 billion retirement fund to divest over $583 million from 91 different fossil fuel companies. The San Francisco fund is the largest that our campaign has targeted so far. We’re still going to need to put some serious pressure on the Retirement Board to follow through with divestment, but as a long-time board member told a local paper, “We’d give it consideration if one supervisor asked us to look at it — and in this case, it was the full board.” 
 
Today’s announcement sends a powerful message to the fossil fuel industry: if you’re going to try and take away our planet, we’re going to try and take away your money. We’re no longer just playing defense against dirty projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, we’re going on offense, too. 
 
It also sends an equally important message to other cities and institutions: if it’s wrong to wreck the planet, then it’s also wrong to profit from that wreckage. And with some of the most innovative cities in the country now firmly on board with this campaign, there should be no excuse for college trustees or other cities to keep dragging their feet on divestment. 
 
Together, we kicked off this divestment campaign last fall and have spread it across the nation to over 300 colleges and universities. Now, the effort is moving off campus: there are over 100 petitions up on the GoFossilFree.org website targeting cities, states, and religious institutions. If you haven’t already started or signed a petition, now is the time. Here’s the link: 
 
 
When we started this effort, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in helping end apartheid in South Africa, told us, “The divestment movement played a key role in helping liberate South Africa. The corporations understood the logics of money even when they weren’t swayed by the dictates of morality. Climate change is a deeply moral issue too, of course...Once again, we can join together as a world and put pressure where it counts.”
 
With today’s announcement, that pressure is coming to bear in powerful ways. It’s still too early to tell if this new divestment movement will have the political impact necessary to weaken the stranglehold the fossil fuel industry has over our government, but thanks to your hard work, we’re off to an incredible start. 
 
Comments

Say it ain't so, Joe. A reality check on Joe Oliver and tar sands development

Daniel Kessler
Posted by Daniel Kessler - 04/24/13, 4:08pm

Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is in Washington this week to lobby on behalf of the tar sands industry. Today he addressed the Center for Strategic and International Studies and in his remarks he greatly embellished or misrepresented both Alberta’s and Canada’s record on climate change while downplaying the impacts from increased tar sands development. Below are exact quotes from Oliver, followed by a Reality Check.

Oliver: “Large producers in Alberta pay a per ton fee into a technology fund that invests in research and development to reduce GHG emissions.”

Reality Check: Alberta’s current policy costs the tar sands industry less than 10 cents a barrel. There are rumors of a new plan, the so called 40/40 plan (a 40% reduction in per-barrel emissions from tar sands and a $40-per-ton payment when that emissions limit is exceeded), but no plan has yet surfaced. Under 40/40, the cost for the tar sands industry to comply would be about the cost of a Coca-Cola at a 7-11 (under $1.50 for a barrel of tar sands oil). 

Oliver: “Together with the province of Alberta, we are implementing a new, world-class environmental monitoring system for the oil sands. It will provide independent, science-based environmental reporting, founded on partnership with industry, Aboriginal communities and other levels of government.”

Reality Check: That’s true but Oliver left out that the system won’t be fully implemented until 2015, yet the government wants to approve major infrastructure projects now which would lock in pollution regardless of what the monitoring system finds later. A very useful timeline from Greenpeace on the history of this monitoring system is available here.

Oliver: “In the past year, we have implemented a new, national strategy for responsible resource development — a regulatory regime that offers both a more efficient and predictable process for investors and enhanced protection for Canada's environment.”

Reality Check: It’s hard to call Canada’s policy to develop the third largest pool of carbon on the planet “responsible.” Canada is on track for a 7% increase in emissions by 2020. Tar sands emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are expected to triple between now and 2020. The IEA has said to avoid runaway climate change Canada will need to keep a full third of its tar sands underground, yet Oliver is championing policies to get at what he estimates to be 300 billion barrels of tar sands crude found in Alberta. Additionally, investing in oil development is no longer a safe bet. The Carbon Tracker Initiative and the London School of Economics recently released a report that shows that 60 to 80 percent of coal, oil and gas reserves held by the top 200 oil, gas and mining companies listed on the world’s stock exchanges could be considered unburnable.

Oliver: “Before I touch on the jobs and economic benefits I think it is important to recall that the U.S. State Department, which is the lead Department on this issue, concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment.” 

Reality Check: The US EPA on Monday graded the State department's Keystone XL analysis as “insufficient.” EPA has asked State to look again at the climate impacts of the pipeline; Keystone’s route through the Ogallala Aquifer; and the department’s market analysis of transporting tar sands crude via rail. On all of these questions and more, State failed its test. State's SEIS has come under  such significant criticism that  it can no longer be taken seriously as an accurate evaluation of Keystone XL.

Oliver: “Furthermore, Canadian oil would come in by train. And, of course, Canada would export oil elsewhere.”

Reality Check: Every major export pipeline in Canada is under heavy scrutiny and suffers from huge public opposition. Even under the most rosy scenarios, none of these pipelines will be built any time soon. In fact, Alberta is so nervous about the pipeline prosals being blocked that it recently started looking into the possibility of exporting oil all the way up at the port at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., a.k.a way the heck up there. On the rail question, a few hours after making these comments, Oliver himself refuted them, telling Reuters, "It (rail) is a good supplement but not the longer-term solution...I don't think anybody would suggest it is." This is due to the high cost of rail, which some industry analysts estimate is as high as $30 per barrel.

 
Comments