Tweet

When it comes to assessing risk, the insurance industry is one of the leaders in the field. Whether it is health insurance, car insurance, or homeowner’s insurance, the industry is forced to analyze every possible scenario for a given person or structure, and impose a fee based on the likelihood of events for the situation. So when an entire industry that bases their profitability on reducing risk starts factoring climate change into their equations, it's probably a good idea to pay attention.

Earlier this month, insurance commissioners in three separate U.S. states began mandating that insurance providers include the risk of climate change disasters in their risk equations, and develop and disclose their plans to deal with climate-related catastrophes. These plans will be laid out in surveys that insurance companies will provide to insurance commissioners in their respective states.

The three states that have made these new rules are California, New York, and Washington State. Previously, many states had only required the largest insurance companies to have climate plans, but the new rules, which could spread across the United States to climate change-vulnerable places like Florida and Texas, require all insurers to adjust for climate change disasters.

The New York Times lays out why the industry is taking on climate change issues:

Tweet

With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set to finally enact stricter air pollution standards in accordance with the Clean Air Act and two subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring them to do so, powerful Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are working to make sure that the new standards never see the light of day. The specific measures being targeted are the EPA’s new standards for carbon emissions from power plant smoke stacks.

Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Republicans Joe Barton (TX) and Ed Whitfield (KY) sent a letter last week to the White House, demanding that the Obama administration take action to stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants.

From their letter:

Tweet

After starting the morning off with a little ritual stomping on the freedom of the press by ordering the arrest of Gasland director Josh Fox, the Republican members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee got down to the real business of the morning: stomping all over the Environmental Protection Agency.

A few months ago the EPA released its draft report on the results from a study it conducted in Pavillion, WY. The residents there worried that the drilling rigs installed to extract natural gas were contaminating their drinking water after they started to experience health problems. After the state failed to produce conclusive results, the EPA was called in and later found benzene and other petroleum compounds not found naturally in groundwater aquifers at 50x the maximum contamination level set by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

After they ruled out other possible sources such as agricultural waste, pesticides, and dysfunctional septic systems, they concluded the contaminants were in fact from the gas wells. The EPA has released the raw data and quality assurance data for commenting and peer review.

The hearing was conducted mainly to assess the validity and integrity of the scientific findings. So naturally, out of the four panelists called to give testimony, none were actually scientists (one was at least a doctor). James Martin testified on behalf of the EPA and Dr. Bernard Goldstein testified to the public health concerns. The other two were Tom Doll of Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission on behalf of the Wyoming governor, and Kathleen Sgamma of Western Energy Alliance.

Tweet

No kinky stuff, Bulgaria declared as it limited Chevron in using only conventional drilling techniques and not hydraulic fracturing. The Bulgarian government voted to prohibit Chevron from using fracking to search for natural gas in the northeast section of the country. The main driver for the decision was public concern about contaminating the drinking water supply and land with unknown chemicals and leaking gas (sound familiar?).

The country asked Chevron in June to conduct an exploratory test within its borders for its potential for gas extraction. Since then, citizens have voiced their concern over allowing fracking because of the dangers of earthquakes and public health risks such as cancer and other ailments experienced by other communities impacted by fracking. This past Saturday (January 14th), people gathered to protest the extreme extraction method and convinced the government to conduct an Environmental Impact Study prior to implementing the techniques.

Tomorrow, the government will take the issue one step further and vote on whether to permanently prohibit fracking both in the country and its designated territorial waters in the Black Sea.

Tweet

The practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has taken center stage this year as one of the most important environmental threats facing North America (and increasingly in other parts of the world). Thanks to inadequate state oversight and Dick Cheney's hamstringing of EPA oversight with the Halliburton Loophole, fracking has expanded through the United States incredibly rapidly over the past few years. In 2011, fracking faced much closer scrutiny as scientists, researchers and affected communities continue studying water, air and property impacts reported in areas where the controversial unconventional energy drilling is taking place.

Fracking awareness received a huge boost this year with “Gasland,” a documentary film which earned director Josh Fox an Academy Award nomination. Featuring interviews with landowners and families affected by fracking, the film is helping to bring the issue to the mainstream.

DeSmogBlog has published dozens of posts detailing the latest information available on fracking over the several years. 

In May 2010, DeSmogBlog released an extensive report, Fracking The Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens Water, Health, and Climate, delving into many of the health, environmental and climate threats posed by the fracking boom.  

Tweet

During last week’s Americans For Prosperity (AFP) event, a common theme kept creeping into the speakers’ presentations: Dismantle the EPA. And as the major funders of AFP, Charles and David Koch are the ones pulling the strings of the American elected officials who keep clamoring for an end to all environmental protections.

Since the new Republican-controlled Congress took over earlier this year, calls for the EPA to be disbanded and general attacks on the agency have been constant. In the last 11 months, we have covered those stories here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Those in favor of saying goodbye to the EPA include presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, elected officials like Republican Representatives Mike Rogers and David McKinley, and even media figures like Fox News’s John Stossel. The attacks include false claims that the agency is destroying jobs, or just general claims that the agency’s usefulness has run its course.

But when you look past those claims, the money from the Koch brotherss and their organizations is all that you can see.