Greenpeace

Toronto - world leaders are gathering today to discuss several topics, including how to implement their commitment at their last meeting to phase out fossil fuel subsidies worldwide.

9:34, Monday, June 28

My prediction that some countries would show up with nothing (because I may have seen the leaked document with the commitments from different countries) hits the E&E Daily:

NATIONS: Six countries claim no fossil fuel subsidies -- leaked G-20 report (06/28/2010)

Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter

President Obama and other world leaders yesterday renewed their commitment to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but sidestepped specifics about how individual countries would do so and when.
Issuing a final declaration as they wrapped up a Group of 20 economic summit in Toronto, leaders again asked finance and energy ministers to come up with strategies for eliminating assistance for oil and gas production and consumption.

5:21, Sunday, June 27

The G20 Ends

Some G20 leaders have taken first steps towards phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but collectively, their actions still don't address the urgent need to stop catastrophic climate change.

Read the full blog here on the Huffington Post.

Greenpeace's team on the Gulf Coast has been taking independent scientists, media teams, and local grassroots organizations out into Barataria Bay, one of the areas hardest hit by the oil disaster, to help assess the full scope of this tragedy and the true cost of our reliance on fossil fuels.  Every day we have been out on the water here, we have been joined by dozens of dolphins, sometimes playing in the distance and sometimes swimming right alongside the Greenpeace boats.

I have spent most of my life living near the ocean, I grew up on the coast of California and also lived on Florida's Gulf Coast. Watching diving pelicans and leaping dolphins has always been a joyful reminder of the wonder of the marine environment, and swimming in the sea gives me a sense of what it means to be a part of this wonderful planet.  But as the oil spreads throughout the Gulf, these have been turned into sad reminders of the immense damage that is being done.

Every time I see a pelican dive for fish here, I wonder how much oil is in the water, and how much is in the fish that it will take back to feed its nesting chicks. Seeing so many dolphins doesn't give us a joyful feeling; the sad reality is that all these dolphins we are seeing here are being pushed up against shore as their habitat is destroyed by millions of gallons of oil, as marine biologist and Greenpeace oceans campaign director John Hocevar explained to the Associated Press on one of our trips.

It gives me a sinking feeling when I think about what it means that seeing dozens of playful dolphins is actually a sign of disaster. It's the same feeling I get when I think about how nice it would be to cool off in the water - but of course the oil on the ocean surface reminds me why we can't. What does it mean when you can't swim in the ocean?

I don’t think anyone entirely knows how to deal with an environmental disaster that just keeps getting worse with no end in sight. Certainly we should stop drilling for oil offshore. But the problem goes deeper than the drill that BP drove into the seabed. Our reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal isn't just devastating a few ecosystems and local communities, it is driving global warming and acidfying the oceans, threatening the funadmental systems that sustain life on our planet. 

A clean energy revolution could move us away from fossil fuels, but it is going to take more than a speech from the oval office to get us there.  I hope we all take the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico with us as we push for an energy policy that puts people and the planet first and holds polluters accountable for the true cost of dirty and dangerous energy.

The sticky, hot oil was so deep that my boots sank three inches and nearly came off when I took my next step.

Where the beach looked clean, I let my eyes follow baby crabs a foot more on shore where I saw the wall of debris and grass saturated four inches deep with thick, reddish-brown oil.

Last Thursday marked one month since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing 11 people and setting in motion an unfolding, unprecedented disaster in the U.S.

[BP]resident Obama?

What was so unsettling in the Gulf was that when I was down there I couldn't tell where President Obama began and BP ended. Greenpeace boats full of reporters were physically blocked by the coastguard and forbidden to take pictures of the oil on the beach. When asked why, the coast guard staff replied: "It's not our policy. It's BP's policy." The President's response to the spill, until yesterday when Lisa Jackson demanded that the toxic dispersants be replaced (kudos to her for this), has seemed like a page out of BP's playbook of focusing on image damage control as much as oil spill damage control. He has not batted an eye in defending further off-shore oil drilling and has withheld from the public the scale of the problem.

I was heartened to hear that the President called for truck mile per gallon standards be upgraded and that fuel economy standards should be strengthened in the long-run for regular cars. The big question is if the President will virtually phase out the use of oil in cars by 2030 or continue down Ken Salazar's misguided drill baby drill policy.

The Coast Guard's "Nightmare Scenario"

As leviathans of underwater oil move their way up the East Coast, President Obama is opening the door to what the Coast Guard called its "nightmare scenario" - drilling in the Arctic.

Shell Oil plans to begin exploratory drilling in Alaska's Arctic Ocean this July. According to the Coast Guard, the pristine Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are extremely remote, freezing cold, covered in darkness for much of the year, and the water is incredibly choppy, making a spill a "nightmare." The rig being shipped right now to the Arctic is older than the BP Deepwater rig that exploded. Regardless, President Obama and Secretary of Interior Salazar continue to push the interests of big oil companies.

This moment will require that the President do more than say that he is frustrated with BP and (rightly) pointing the finger. President Obama should ban all offshore oil drilling and call for an end to the use of oil in our cars by 2030.

Stopping Shell's drilling plan would be a good, first indicator that the President is moving away from the Salazar-BP oil policy. Getting America's cars and trucks off of oil by 2030 would prove that the President is finally actually leading.

Today Greenpeace activists took a stand on the ship the Harvey Explorer to send a message to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The activists used oil from the spill to paint the message "Arctic Next?" on the bridge of the ship, which is scheduled to depart for Alaska to support drilling operations in July.

The weather along the Gulf of Mexico finally cleared today, but with the wind backing around to the north and east, the spill remains out to sea.

Retired University of Alaska marine conservation expert Rick Steiner joined us today.  He's worked on oil spills around the world, most significantly on the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound Alaska. 

Rick says that the fact that this spill emanates from the bottom of the gulf (5,000 feet down), where the water temperature is approximately 1 degree Centigrade (and the oil is hot) means that by the time the oil reaches the surface, it has thoroughly mixed with water and therefore does not appear to be the kind of gruesome slick that is so famous from previous disasters.

It's a PR boon to BP that this is so, because it means that the oil spill remains hidden from public view.  It does not, however, mean there is not a tremendous environmental tragedy unfolding.  As we speak about this, we need to make that point clear.  It's not just about what we can see from shore and that BP has been proactively taking steps to keep the damage hidden.

The dispersant being used at the wellhead – tradename “Corexit,” is nicknamed by Rick “Hidez-it” because the real reason it is used is to keep the damage out of sight.  He points out that oil is toxic to wildlife, dispersant is toxic to wildlife, but the toxicity of the two combined is greater than the sum of the parts.

A fisherman we spoke with also noted that if dispersants are used, it saves BP money because they can hire fewer fishing boats – at $1,500 per day each – to skim oil.

As we noted last night, when dispersants are not used, the oil comes ashore and kills birds, when it is not used, it stays in the water column and kills fish, but it's worth noting that killing fish means killing birds eventually because of, y’know, that whole food web thing.

On another BP front, we hear that BP is demanding that fishermen who they hire in the cleanup sign gag orders, agreeing not to talk to the media.  Rick says it’s one of the many similarities to the Valdez spill.  BP’s reading from the playbook Exxon wrote.

The rules are:

1 – Understate the amount of oil spilled and environmental damage done.

2 – Overstate the effectiveness of the oil company’s response (or more accurately, the oil company’s “response theater”).

3 – Try to buy off the locals for a pittance in exchange for waivers that they will not sue.

4 – Get as many people under a gag order as possible.

We are warning the locals that it took 20 years of court battles to get Exxon to pay damages to the people of Prince William Sound and that the final settlement was only one-tenth of the original award.

Rick said, “Right after Valdez, someone told me, ‘Lawyers still unborn will be litigating this spill’ and I laughed at him.  Well, it’s been 21 years and the litigation is still not finished, so he may be right.”

 

--Mark

When we launched PolluterHarmony last month, it quickly became the #1 online matchmaking site for polluters, industry lobbyists, and politicians. Even though some were a little shy about the attention, Jeff and Lisa's touching story of a polluter lobbyist and his special Senator was so magical, it even led to some serious action inside the Senate office building!

Of course, lobbyists for the coal industry aren't the only ones getting their way with policymakers these days; oil company CEOs are getting lots of love too. So to make sure our Senators know what they can expect from a relationship with Big Oil, here's the latest Polluterharmony success story:



Rex's Story exposes the truth about the Drill Baby Drill mantra to open up drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and other public lands to oil companies in the futile quest for oil independence. Oil execs know that America will always rely on oil from foreign countries. Take when George W. Bush spoke about the US addiction to imported oil during his 2006 State of the Union address. Immediately, Big Oil kicked him in the shins for having the nerve to talk about oil that way. An Exxon exec characterized getting off foreign oil as "simply not feasible."

In reality, oil CEOs want to open our coastlines and public lands to oil drilling for their own profit even though they know it will never result in "energy independence" for the United States. Until we get off of oil, we won't get off of 'foriegn oil'. Period.

But the oil companies are working their magic at the state level and on Capitol Hill... "Rex" led all Big Oil donors to "Bob's" campaign in Virginia. Governor Bob talks about the proposed drilling being "out of sight" 50 miles offshore... Has anyone else noticed that 50 miles offshore of Virginia is also 50 miles off of Maryland and North Carolina and Delaware and about 75 miles off New Jersey...? Hmm, whose ocean is it to give away?

Some Senators have definitely taken notice. Ten coastal Democratic Senators wrote Sen. Kerry and friends this week stating that climate legislation with giveaways on offshore drilling is not a bet they are willing to take. From the Senators' letter:

It has come to our attention that some interests are aggressively pursuing an effort to open the nation's coasts and oceans to unfettered access to oil and gas drilling. This is of great concern to us.

As coastal Senators we truly appreciate your efforts to develop comprehensive climate legislation. After all, our states are literally the front lines when it comes to the severe impacts we'll see from sea level rise and stronger storms. But we hope that as you forge legislation, you are mindful that we cannot support legislation that will mitigate one risk only to put our coasts at a greater peril from another source."

Giving Big Oil access to protected places not only won't make America energy independent, it poses grave economic risks and stands to leave us with a spoiled environment and more global warming pollution. Climate and clean energy policy should move us away from oil, not further our addiction to this dangerous and dirty fuel.

Vinuta Gopal, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace India, just sent the following out in an email. I think it lays out the issue quite well, and figured I'd share it here.

The media has been buzzing about the IPCC's Himalayan glacier controversy.

The international climate panel headed by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for a ground-breaking report on climate change. Several small errors have now surfaced in the 3,000-page report.

If you're wondering what the news reports mean for climate change, here are some answers. Please spread the word to your family, friends, and co-workers.

1. Do the U.N. climate panel's errors mean there is no threat from climate change?

No, the dire threat from climate change is not in question. The panel's errors were only related to the intensity of climate change. There are in fact only two real mistakes that have been found so far and neither necessitate any change to the basic premise of human-induced climate change.

For over two decades, scientists have consistently found that climate change is happening, and it's caused by human activity.

2. Why is there so much furor about these errors?

Over the past 20 years, the U.N. climate panel has been attacked again and again by the fossil fuel industry and by politicians who are determined to discredit climate change science and continue on an unsustainable development pathway which would ensure dire consequences for this earth.

3. Are the Himalayan glaciers melting or not?

In 2007, the U.N. climate panel reported that Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. The specific year turned out to be based on a flawed study, and the panel has corrected the error.

The Himalayan glaciers are retreating, but the exact rate of retreat is still uncertain. India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh was one of the first to argue that the 2035 forecast was "not based on an iota of scientific evidence," but he confirms the Himalayan glaciers "are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern."

4. Who will be impacted by climate change?

Everyone. Lesser developed countries and small island states will be hit hardest and fastest.

But rich nations are not immune to the violent weather, drought, disease, famine, mass migrations, and wars that will be caused if we don't stop climate change.

5. What is Greenpeace’s call on climate change?

The science is clear. Climate change is real, is happening now and is caused by people. The solution is clean energy, smart use of our power and forest protection.

Since lots of people are wondering about the media stories, please forward this mail to your family, friends and co-workers.

Thanks a billion!

Vinuta Gopal
Climate Campaigner
Greenpeace India

P.S. If you want more details, check out this thorough analysis at RealClimate.org.

Thank the stars for the Daily Show. While the mainstream media has largely been silent over the lies and distortions climate change deniers have been making over the recent snowstorms affecting the East Coast, Jon Stewart's merry cast of characters took the air out of their ridiculous and irresponsible arguments. At the 3:48 mark of the video below, Stewart hilariously mocks the comments by some that say the heavy snow is proof that climate change is a hoax.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Climate change deniers, like Sens. Jim DeMint and James Inhofe, will use any opportunity to push their fact-free agenda. On Monday, DeMint wrote on his Twitter account: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle'". Inhofe and his grandchildren built an igloo on the national mall and adorned it with a sign that reads "Al Gore's New Home".

Oh, the wit. And the utter recklessness of it.

Fortunately, the Daily Show effectively used their sardonic platform to show how ridiculous these sort of actions are. Again, for the benefit of some of our media friends and elected officials, climate is about long-term patterns, which in the case of our climate shows a dangerous warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Weather is about short-term events, like snowstorms or rainfall. 

In fact, a White House report issued last year shows that climate change is likely to lead to bigger snow storm in the mid-Atlantic region because warmer air holds more moisture. It's true. You can look it up. I invite Senators Inhofe and DeMint to do the same before they go off and embarrass themselves and their families.

One of the many advantages of being a Greenpeace Field Organizer for Northern California is the incredibly diverse region I am responsible for. Not only do I get to work out of the sweet San Francisco office, but I get to travel from the ocean to the mountains, and everywhere in-between, for the sake of fighting for the future of our planet. One place I was particularly thrilled to work in is the famous wine country just north of the Bay Area. It is here that I met Ted Lemon, his dog Bo, and got a peek into the life of a Californian winemaker.

Lemon began his career by studying in France where he apprenticed at several highly esteemed estates in Burgundy. In 1993, Ted Lemon and his wife Heidi founded Littorai Wines to produce Chardonnay and Pinot Noir wines on the north coast of California. Lemon has worked as a winemaker and consultant to many prominent wineries and he owns or leases several small-scale vineyards throughout Sonoma and Mendocino counties.

I recently got the chance to visit one of his Sonoma County vineyards in the quaint town of Sebastopol. This biodynamically farmed vineyard serves as a self sustaining, integrated and diversified farm because Lemon follows a holistic approach to winemaking known as terroir. This concept posits that the quality and taste of wine depends entirely on the soil and climate conditions in which the grapes are grown. The pinots produced by Lemon and other winemakers depend on the climate of Sonoma's famed coastal influence. It lies just north of the San Francisco Bay and benefits from its moderating ocean breezes.


For centuries, the West Coast has been an ideal climate for grape growing and California alone makes up about 92% of the entire U.S. wine industry, with more than 90% of the profit in premium wines.  However, these homegrown wines face a serious threat from global warming. Scientists predict that global warming will bring higher temperatures, more heat waves and less precipitation - changes that could destroy the state's $15 billion wine industry. Furthermore, a study conducted by Purdue University’s Climate and Earth Systems research group projects that there will be over an 80% reduction in total premium wine production due to climate change . Lemon’s pinot noir is particularly susceptible to the consequences of a changing climate. If left unaddressed, global warming could make it impossible to grow Pinot Noir in California.

While concern for the impacts of global warming on his life’s work is not new to Lemon, he is now taking action beyond sustainable growing practices. He is calling for the necessary leadership from President Obama to meet this challenge of our generation head-on. Recently, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark for the most important United Nations Climate Negotiation to date. Unfortunately, President Obama did not listen to the calls for real climate solutions from scientists, heads of developing countries and the tens of thousands of protesters that flooded into Copenhagen for the Negotiations. Leadership from President Obama is essential for both a global climate treaty and locally protecting the longevity and prosperity of the Lemon’s wine business.

 

The Southern California wildfires of October 2007 were some of the most devastating fires the state has ever seen.  The fires burned over 500,000 acres from Santa Barbara County to the U.S.-Mexico border.  Nine people died,  eighty five(including fire fighters) were injured, and over 800,000 people were forced to flee their homes in what has been labeled as the largest evacuation in California’s history to date (larger than Hurricane Katrina)..  

The Witch Creek Fire, the largest fire of them all that October, tore through 197,990 acres of northern San Diego County. Over a thousand homes were destroyed with hundreds more damaged, and  two people lost their lives.  Of the forty one  people injured in the Witch Creek Fire, thirty nine of them were fire fighters faced with the task of fighting the blazes head-on.  

The increasingly hot and dry conditions we could see year after year as a result of climate change could bring more severe fires that will be even more threatening to people and property, and a massive drain of resources on our local, state and federal government.  Fires like the Witch Creek Fire could become common for Southern Californians, and now is our opportunity to demand real leadership on climate change to protect our communities.

A Closer Look

Eric Johnson, an information security specialist in the electronics industry, moved to Rancho Bernardo, a community about 20 miles northeast of downtown San Diego, in November of 2005.  His wife (then girlfriend) Megan, who works in media and marketing, moved in with him in spring of 2006. Eric and Megan’s apartment in Rancho Bernardo was their first home together.

The Johnsons had been camping a few hours north up the coast in Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo when the Witch Creek Fire started. They decided to stop for coffee before their long trek back home when they saw a headline in the Los Angeles Times about the fires.  They were overwhelmed with concern for the safety of their home, and particularly for their African Grey Parrot, Ivy, who they had left there.

The couple rushed back to San Diego, and Eric decided to risk the journey to Rancho Bernardo to see if he could rescue Ivy.  Many roads were blocked off, and Eric parked his motorcycle on a cul-du-sac overlooking their home and ran down a smoldering hill to their still-standing apartment complex.  Fortunately, Ivy was safe, but Eric had little time to sneak her into his pocket before leaving again, as the fires were still not contained.

Eric describes the first time they were permitted to return to their apartment as “foreign.”  Tragically, several buildings in Eric and Megan’s apartment complex burned down in the fires.  While the Johnson’s building did not burn down, they lost many belongings and their apartment was damaged so badly that it was declared uninhabitable.

“The place was a wreck, everything was caked in soot,” Eric recalls.  “We had to be escorted in by a police officer and had 10 minutes to get what we needed and then had to leave.  We weren't allowed to go back for good for another two days.”

Two years later, Eric, Megan and Ivy have rebuilt their lives and have settled in nearby Cardiff-by-the-Sea, part of North County San Diego’s coastal community.  They are happy and resilient people, and while they have moved on, it is clearly an experience that they will carry with them the rest of their lives, and as non-natives to San Diego, they have learned many lessons for coping with future fire seasons.  Most of all, Eric and Megan understand that they were lucky, as many in their situation have not been.  In a future ravaged by climate change, not as many will be as lucky as the Johnsons and more people and property will be put at risk year after year.  

The future of Southern California is not to be gambled with - we need strong action for the climate, and the “solutions” that our leaders in Copenhagen put on the table last week are not enough to protect us from the worst impacts of climate change here at home.  In the coming year, Californians need to speak up now more than ever for the real solutions to the climate crisis, otherwise we’re leaving our future up to chance.