Environmental Protest or YouTube Stunt?

In New South Wales, Australia on 29th June, wood-chipping company, Eden says that an anti-logging protest was staged on its premises, for reasons that weren’t worthwhile.

Environmental protestors chained themselves to a conveyor belt, protesting that environmental legislation neglected the needs of local wildlife but a spokesman for the plant said ‘… It didn’t affect us in any way and we just left them there until they decided that they felt like going home and they did. These days it’s as much about the show as it is about the reasons, so I guess the show must go on and sometimes the reasons are worthwhile and sometimes they are not.’

If it was worth having, we wouldn’t be getting it, says Judge

In a mordant comment on where polluting substances end up, County Municipal Court Judge Julie Monnin expressed concerns about a plan to sequester carbon dioxide 3,000 feet under Greenville Ohio. She fears the likely decline in property values and pointed out that the plant could lead to people need, and failing to get, man-made earthquake insurance. In her own words, ‘Folks, if it were a good thing, Greenville wouldn’t be getting it.’

The carbon dioxide comes from a nearby ethanol plant and will be injected underground, but before this can happen, large trucks would need to travel local roads, creating seismic shockwaves to test the ground, but these tests have been postponed for fear they would damage local agricultural drainage systems.

Guilty of unlawful protest, campaigners believe they did nothing illegal

In the UK today, 22 environmental protestors have been found guilty of unlawful protest. In June 2008 they boarded a train carrying coal into Drax Coal-Fired Power Station in Yorkshire, after two of their number posed as railway staff to flag it down, allowing others to mount the train and prevent it moving for 16 hours.  During their protest they poured coal on the tracks to stop the train moving.  The campaigners claimed in court that they had not done anything illegal because they were trying to prevent climate change, but the judge—who has said they will not face a custodial sentence—decided that their actions, and the £30,000 clean up operation that followed the protest, were illegal.

Drax power station courtesy of leedsyorkshire at flickr under a creative commons licence

“I believe in climate change for a very important reason,” said Colbert during his show last night, “so I can market the new Colbert Report Green. It’s just like the regular Colbert Report except we reduce emissions by jumping on the bandwagon.” Watch it:

Read more of this story »

San Francisco, CA - They’re everywhere. On the streets, in gutters; even collecting in pools of water. Little orange and white rolls of paper and tobacco. Cigarettes. Once used, these unfriendly remains haunt our down towns and our backyards. But it’s time to say goodbye to the orange and white…in San Francisco at least. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee unanimously supported a measure that will help get rid of the stubs of used cigarettes.

The measure would increase the price of cigarettes by $0.20 per pack. The hike in price isn’t simply to discourage the purchase of cigarettes, but to help mitigate the costs of cigarette clean-up, relying on those who use cigarettes to help clean up.

Studies done by the city show that 25% of all litter found on sidewalks and in gutters is cigarette related. The $0.20 per pack of cigarettes would be reported and remitted on a regular basis by the retailers who collect the money at the counter. The funds would then be dispersed by the city  for use in litter collection.

“All litter creates unnecessary costs for the city and its taxpayers,” said Mayor Newsom. “Cigarette butts are a big part of the problem.” Newsom, who commended the Board for their support of the fee on Monday, June 29, included this fee as a line item in his June 1 budget and introduced this legislation to enact a regulatory fee to recover these costs from the consumers of cigarettes.

Not only are cigarette butts eyesores, but they are harmful to the environment as well. ”Cigarette butts contain benzene and toxic heavy metals that can poison the marine environment and leach into groundwater,” said Newsom.

According to Newsom, researchers at San Diego State University have found that chemicals found in just one filtered cigarette butt can kill all living fish in a one liter bucket of water.

While the fee looked strong in its first reading on Monday, it could still be stomped out by the complete Board next week at its decisive vote.

Photo Credit: fragglerawker_03 via flickr under Creative Commons License

India’s Environment minister has made it clear that his government will not agree to any demands for mandatory emission reduction goals. The minister, in a statement, said what a recent World Bank report had noted, that India could jeopardize its fight against poverty if it agrees to emissions reductions and increase economic burden on its people.

This is not the first time that India has made such statements, India’s climate negotiator Shyam Saran has made similar statements in the past but none have been so direct and for the first time it has been that a statement from the Environment minister has been issued. This ‘aggression’ is due to the fast approaching Copenhagen round of talks for the next climate treaty where developed countries will certainly put pressure on advanced developing countries like India, China, Mexico and others to agree to some kind of emission reduction goals. Adding teeth to India’s argument is the World Bank report.

India has clearly stated its negotiating stance which, most certainly, would include call for developed nations to provide greater monetary help to the developing and poor countries to acquire clean energy technology. India, along with China and Mexico, recently unveiled plans for expanding renewable energy infrastructure, quite possibly to see off any demands for mandatory emission cuts. So if these countries cannot agree to emission reduction targets why not agree to or set voluntary renewable energy targets?

Read more of this story »

During a recent meeting of the Environment minsters of EU member countries side stepped the issue of declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant. While the minsters agreed on a proposal to reduce industrial pollution various environment groups criticized the ministers’ inaction on what seemed an essential and significant decision in Europe’s fight against climate change.

According to the deal reached, heavy industries like power plants and oil refineries will have to comply to new and stricter sulfur and nitrogen emissions as well as the release of dust particles, asbestos and heavy metals into the environment. Obviously, carbon dioxide has been left out which is why the environmentalists have been fuming. European leaders should have sent a strong message by classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant keeping in mind the Copenhagen Climate Talks scheduled later this year.

Classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant would have added teeth to the EU goal of 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 by adding the health aspect it. European Environment Bureau, a coalition of local environmental groups voiced its concerns saying,

Read more of this story »

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Senator Harry Reid announce plans to fast-track commercial-scale solar power development on public lands.

In a plan announced on Tuesday, federal agencies will work with western leaders to designate tracts of U.S. public lands in the West as prime zones for utility-scale solar energy development; fund environmental studies; open new solar energy permitting offices, and; speed reviews of industry proposals.

Under the zoning portion of the initiative, 24 tracts of Bureau of Land Management land located in six western states, known as Solar Energy Study Areas, would be evaluated for their environmental and resource suitability for commercial-scale solar energy production. Those areas selected would be available for projects capable of producing 10 or more megawatts of electricity. The Solar Energy Study Areas (maps) located in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah encompass about 670,000 acres.

Speaking alongside Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Secretary Salazar vowed to have 13 “commercial-scale” solar projects under construction by the end of 2010. He set a goal of producing a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

What is a little surprising is how Inhofe doesn’t appear to learn any lessons from his past adventures in list building, scandal and fear mongering, and character assassination. Inhofe is either really not very bright, or purposely and cynically deceitful. Either option isn’t pretty.

Read more of this story »

According the survey, more than three quarters of African Americans would back federal policy action on climate change. Conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, that survey found that a majority of African Americans (54 percent) characterize global warming as a major problem, with another 24 percent thinking it a moderate problem, while 81 percent believe that the federal government should take strong action to deal with global warming. The poll also found strong support (72 percent) among African Americans for legislative action that would mandate the U.S. to begin achieving the goals of the Kyoto treaty on climate change.

On balance, the survey found that while African Americans do not believe dealing with global warming will be cost-free, they do believe that not dealing with global warming will be more costly, and that a clean energy economy represents a better future.

Read more of this story »

Every several years the power of Big Agriculture is evident when the Farm Bill is renegotiated, promising untold billions to the agriculture sector in the form of subsidies, incentives, research grants, and other programs.

Big Ag wielded its mighty stick again in the weeks leading up to the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. A number of representatives led by House Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn) withheld support of the bill until control of future agricultural offsets for the upcoming cap and trade markets was wrested away from the EPA (the preferred choice of environmentalists) and given to the more farmer-friendly USDA. Also heavily involved in the lobbying for more agriculture-specific provisions in Waxman-Markey were some of Big Ag’s most powerful players, including heavyweights like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dupont.

One of the key areas that the USDA has taken control of in Waxman-Markey is the design and delivery of agriculture-based offset projects. Authorities in both the US and Canada have long recognized the importance of the agriculture sector in meeting national greenhouse gas emission reductions. Understandably, farmers have been eagerly anticipating the additional revenues coming their way from offset projects in cap and trade markets.

There are a number of agricultural project types that are being touted for generating offset credits, including:

• reduced tillage / no-tillage
• afforestation of marginal farmlands
• nitrogen fertilizer management
• improved manure management
• livestock feed management (dairy, swine)
• anaerobic digesters
• biomass energy
• energy efficiency upgrades of facilities

A number of the potential agriculture offset project types are robust, defensible, and easily measured, particularly those involving energy generation (digesters, biomass energy) and energy conservation. But in a classic example of ‘not all offsets are created equal’, there is the potential for a huge quality gap between the robust credits and those that are harder to measure, monitor, and verify.

Conservation tillage practices (reduced till or no-till) are used by farmers to introduce a number of benefits to the soil, including improved fertility and reduced erosion. A number of studies have also shown that conservation tillage increases the sequestration of carbon in the soil. One study conducted at The Ohio State University estimated that U.S. farmers could store 288 million tons of carbon in their soil every year, which represents 17% of American GHG emissions.

The recent actions of Big Ag suggest that it will make every effort necessary to get conservation tillage approved as an allowable offset project – the number of farmers and acres that stand to benefit are simply too great to pass by. Yet a number of contradictory studies have been published in recent years that question the scientific validity of using tillage practices for offset credits.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh state that increased soil carbon storage introduced by conservation tillage could be counterbalanced by increases in nitrous oxide emissions from the soil, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. They state that “the promotion of carbon credits for the no-till system before we have better quantification of its net greenhouse gas balance is naïve.” Meanwhile, a study by the USDA and University of Minnesota concludes that: “though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling.”

When you consider that tillage-based offset projects are difficult to accurately measure and routinely monitor (in addition to the contradictory science), it will be very interesting to see how much appeal these credits will have in the emerging cap-and-trade markets.

I am in the business of recommending offset credits to businesses that need to buy them either to meet future regulatory requirements or voluntary programs. In all likelihood I would never recommend a client invest in tillage-based offset credits – there are just too many questions surrounding them. And given the amount of potential acreage that could be signed up to no-till contracts if they are approved as an allowable offset for use in cap and trade, what impact will this risky carbon credit method have on the overall GHG inventory of the nation?

Image: jimmedia at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.