Oil giants Shell and BP lobbied government on its climate plans before and after the Paris COP21 conference, new documents seen by DeSmog...
New and protracted battles in the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) war are breaking out across Pennsylvania and other states near the Marcellus Shale over pipeline companies’ use of eminent domain.
The fiercest battle pits Philadelphia-based Sunoco Logistics against homeowners in the path of a pipeline that crosses Pennsylvania. In a controversial move invoking eminent domain, Sunoco aims to seize private lands to make room for a pipeline extension that would move highly volatile liquids (HVL) used in the making of plastics from the Marcellus Shale region to eastern Pennsylvania.
American voters and politicians are now more polarized than ever before across all aspects of climate change — from the cause, to the science and the impacts — a major new analysis has found.
Campaigns funded by vested fossil fuel interests and pushed by a network of ideological think tanks, many linked to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, have helped to widen the gap, pushing Republican politicians, elites and voters away from action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Tracking Gallup opinion poll surveys going back to 2001 and congress voting patterns from 1970 onwards, the analysis authors warn that as the November election approaches, Americans are faced with a stark political choice.
Major global insurance companies are urging G20 leaders to commit to a specific timeline for rapidly phasing out fossil fuel subsidies – something they’ve repeatedly failed to do over the years despite numerous promises to end support for the industry.
In a joint statement issued ahead of the G20 conference in China this weekend, insurers with more than USD$1.2 trillion in assets under management warn that support for the production of coal, oil, and gas is at odds with the nations’ commitment to tackle climate change agreed in Paris last December.
The statement, signed by Aviva, Aegon NV, and MS Amlin, calls for governments to set “a clear timeline for the full and equitable phase-out by all G20 members of all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.”
The Standing Rock tribe has filed a lawsuit against the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for using the controversial Nationwide Permit 12 to fast-track authorization of the hotly contested Dakota Access pipeline.
Slated to carry oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin to Patoka, Illinois, the plaintiffs say not only was the Army Corps' permitting of the Energy Transfer Partners and Enbridge Corporation jointly owned pipeline a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act, but also a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act's (NHPA) Section 106.
A review of court documents for the case currently unfolding in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. has revealed that the tribal liaison for Energy Transfer Partners tasked with abiding by Section 106 passed through the revolving door and formerly worked for the Army Corps. The finding also raises key ethical questions in the field of archaeology.
Eleanor Fairchild, an 82-year-old grandmother who owns a 425-acre ranch outside of Winnsboro, Texas, has advice for anyone who is asked to sign a contract by a company that wants to build a pipeline to transport tar sands oil on their land: “Don’t sign it.”
During a recent visit to her ranch, I saw the damage to her land caused by the installation of TransCanada’s Gulf Coast Pipeline, which is the original southern route of the Keystone XL pipeline before the project was broken into segments.
I first met Fairchild in October 2012, a few days after she was arrested, along with environmentalist actress Daryl Hannah. The two had stood in the way of land-moving vehicles on Fairchild’s land where TransCanada had started clearing trees and readying a right-of-way to install its pipeline. At that time, Fairchild was refusing to make a deal with TransCanada, but the company moved forward with clearing her land anyway.
The Spectator is one of the oldest English language magazines on the planet, established in London in 1828. Chances are if you’ve never read it, you’ve probably heard of it.
The Marine Biologist magazine, on the other hand, was only launched in 2013. With no disrespect to the good people there, chances are you’ve neither heard of it, read it or are aware of its very existence.
But earlier this week the Marine Biologist’s website published an eviscerating 2,500-word analysis of an April column that had appeared in The Spectator.
Electricity generation from wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies have set monthly records every month so far in 2016, based on data through June released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration yesterday.
“Both hydroelectric and nonhydroelectric renewables have contributed to this trend, but in different ways. After a lengthy West Coast drought, hydro generation has increased and is now closer to historical levels. Nonhydro renewable generation continues to increase year-over-year and has exceeded hydro generation in each month since February 2016,” the EIA said in a statement.
After an intense lobbying spree and threats from Governor Jerry Brown to take the measure directly to voters via ballot initiative should it fail to pass, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) was approved by the California legislature yesterday.
When it is signed into law by Brown, SB 32 will extend the climate targets adopted by the state under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which required California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The state is well on pace to meet the emissions targets set by AB 32, which is credited with having spurred developments that contributed $48 billion to California’s economy over the past 10 years while creating a half million jobs.
This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup
In an interesting new paper, two pairs of authors bring their unique viewpoints to bear on a hard to handle subject – how should scientists and the public interact to ensure the accuracy of scientific studies? How can scientists tell the difference between politically motivated trolls (deniers) and genuinely interested non-academics (skeptics)?
Two of the authors are well known in climate circles: Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky. They’re joined by Nicholas J. L. Brown and Dr. Harris Friedman, an outsider and an academic who worked together to upend a once-popular study in behavioral psychology. Together, the group provides a unique take on how to distinguish between the honest skepticism embodied by Brown and Friedman and the denialist abuse regularly hurled at Mann and Lewandowsky.
New research by a team of international scientists reveals that the effects of human induced climate change began much earlier than originally thought.
The study, conducted by researchers with the 2K Network and PAGES (Past Global Changes) and published today in the scientific journal Nature, finds that warming began in the mid-1800s shortly after the Industrial Revolution kicked off.
This confirms that our impact on the climate began just decades after we started burning fossil fuels – about 180 years earlier than traditional climate change graphs have shown – and that even the smallest amount of carbon dioxide can have an effect on how fast global temperatures increase.