Wasn’t it only six short days ago that President Bush stood before the nation and called for the halt of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025? Then why is the federal government, led by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), planning to power Western cities with a new utility grid that bypasses renewable energy and that incentivizes more coal, oil and natural gas production? 

Called the West-Wide Energy Corridors Process, the reality of this plan is that it’s little more than a scheme to build nearly 6,000 miles of “corridors” through nearly 3 million acres of public lands, including national parks and national monuments. Averaging over 2/3 a mile wide and capable of holding up to 35 natural gas pipelines, these corridors will have massive and long-term effects on public lands.

During a congressional hearing last week, energy experts and county, state, and tribal officials testified against the plan and criticized the DOE for not consulting with local stakeholders when designating the corridors. Representative Raúl Grijalva said that on a map the corridors looked like “giant extension cords to existing coal sources.”

How can we realistically lower greenhouse emissions if we continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels? Lowering emissions requires a serious commitment to the development and sustainability of renewable energy, but the proposed corridors leave renewables without access to the grid. The feds needs to go back and consult with local and tribal officials, provide access to renewable energy and protect our public lands.

This guest article was written for The Unsuitablog by James Navarro of the Wilderness Society.

 

On the day China was announced as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide* (well, about as official as we can get at the moment) Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK announced that he was going to focus on just one thing – and I’m not surprised considering how important this thing is:

“Next month’s University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.”

Sorry? Did I get that wrong? Oh, it isn’t the changing global climate – the event that now guarantees to cause irreversible ecological damage that will affect us dramatically — that Gordon Brown is focusing on; it is the economic climate. Silly me. I do forget sometimes that if we don’t all go to the shops to buy piles of crap, fly off on sunny vacations and keep using more and more natural resources to ensure that the global economy keeps on growing then we are doomed! Doomed to what, exactly?

Here’s what Gordon actually said:

“Every day that I wake up is about keeping this economy moving forward, keeping stability in the economy and keeping growth…we will do everything in our power to keep the economy moving forward”

To everyone who has an inkling of knowledge about both ecology and economics, this statement reeks of a complete disregard for climatic stability, indeed you could just substitute “global warming” for “economy” and you would get a pretty accurate rendition of what all Western governments, and those non-Western governments that have adopted the growth-lust of the West, are doing to the planet:

“The problem is that growth has to come from somewhere, and it can either come from some artificially created value, such as property prices, which could collapse at any time, or some resource, such as oil, coal, cropland, rock or metal, that is continually being used at an increasing rate. In short, if companies do not accelerate their use of resources then the global economy will not be able to carry on as it is. The economy is hell-bent on consuming the Earth’s finite resources in order to survive.”

(from http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/17630)

Next time you hear Gordon Brown mention the environment, climate change or anything else vaguely green, just ignore him: he is just another cretin who thinks that money is more important than life.

---

*This is what I said in 2006: “China has overtaken the USA in absolute numbers of televisions and refrigerators, but with a population 4 times higher, the per capita use is still well below that of the USA for these, pretty representative, items. China’s total carbon emissions have just exceeded (as of 2006) those of the USA.”

Bad Unsuitablog, having a go at the glorious reich, sorry US Air Force. I’m sure there are some good people in there, but it’s leadership that counts, so what is the leadership of the USAF saying about climate change:

“The Air Force will meet the law’s requirements”. That’s Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson actually pretending that the Air Force are subject to the law. It’s not exactly a glorious history — observing national, or international law isn’t exactly high on their list of strategic aims — and if you know anything about US law then you will know that the US military are exempt from all clean air legislation. And, anyway, what laws exist in the USA to prevent greenhouse gas emissions?

But I digress, the big thing here is that the US Air Force are planning to convert coal into jet fuel to stave off the need to import oil:

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country’s abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors — nervous over coal’s role in climate change — to sink money into similar plants nationwide. “We’re going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there’s three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves,” said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. “Guess what? We’re going to burn coal.”

(from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_bi_ge/military_coal)

This, frankly, ludicrous suggestion would be more at home in The Onion, but as with all good satire it’s dangerously close to the truth, despite the best efforts of various scientists and Representatives to make a mockery of it. Bear in mind also that even if coal were used — along with its sky high cost in greenhouse gas emissions — it is going to start to tail off in the next couple of decades.

So what are the US Air Force going to be doing with all that lovely coal-based jet fuel? Probably patrolling the USA shooting at anyone who dares break the marshal law that will be in place when all the fuel runs out…

As I reported back in February, the Government of Alberta, Canada, have gone to great pains to pretend they are making progress on greenhouse gas emissions they try to demonstrate by using the completely discredited Carbon / Greenhouse Gas Intensity statistic. They still are. A simple analysis showed that Alberta’s emissions were going through the roof, and now this rise has been officially confirmed in an e-mail from Environment Minister, Rob Renner which I reproduce in full here*:

Premier Ed Stelmach has forwarded a copy of your recent letter regarding Alberta’s greenhouse gas intensity.  I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government of Alberta (GoA).

Alberta has been using emissions intensity as a standard of measurement for a number of years.  Overall emissions in Alberta are rising, partly as a result of increasing development in the oil sands and partly as a result of increasing demand worldwide for petroleum products.  Emissions intensity shows that while our economy continues to rise, the emissions per unit of economic output are decreasing.  This demonstrates that production is becoming more efficient.

The GoA recognizes that global climate change is real and that progressive, immediate action is required to effectively respond to this important issue.  The GoA remains committed to doing our fair share to reduce emissions while at the same time ensuring that our efforts are practical, achievable and allow for continued economic prosperity in the province.

Alberta was the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop a comprehensive plan to address climate change and the first Province to pass climate change specific legislation, which requires large industrial emitters to reduce their emissions.

Developed after extensive consultations with Albertans, Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy outlines the framework that ensures the GoA remains at the forefront of this issue, focusing our efforts on those opportunities that can deliver real, meaningful reductions.  Our strategy will achieve real reductions that will be achieved over the short (2010), medium (2020) and long-terms (2050). The reductions will be realized through actions in the areas of carbon capture and storage [Ed: 70% of the total], conserving and using energy efficiently and greening energy production.

The GoA recognizes there is a need to reduce emissions; however, we cannot immediately stop emissions without severe disruption to our economy, which is also a major driver for national growth.  The GoA believe the long-term nature of the strategy is the key to its success. By beginning now to reduce the rate of emissions, we will ensure that significant and lasting reductions will occur.  The plan is focused on being practical and achievable, as well as encouraging innovation in Alberta industry.  The strategy also commits us to develop a more specific climate change adaptation strategy to ensure that we minimize our risks to the real impacts of a changing climate.  This is a realistic approach for our province.

The GoA is on a path to ensuring meaningful reductions through fundamental shifts in how we develop and use Alberta’s energy resources in ways that respond to the full range of needs of our customers across North America.  The GoA will continue to work with our partners in industry, with other governments, including coordination with federal efforts, and all stakeholders, to put in place the technologies that will reduce emissions in ways that maintain the quality of life Albertans enjoy.

If you would like further information on the strategy, I encourage you to visit the GoA’s website at: www.alberta.ca.

Sincerely,

Rob Renner
Minister of Environment

c.c. Hon. Ed Stelmach
Premier

After some reflection about the complete lack of conviction in Alberta’s desire to reduce its global emissions contribution, I sent this reply which, again, I reproduce in full:

Dear Rob

I’m afraid this is the kind of response that makes me understand why governments are not to be trusted to deal with the climate crisis -  I presume you have seen the latest news about the West Antarctic ice sheet; or perhaps you were distracted by the promise of new economic “opportunities” when the ice is all gone?

“The GoA recognizes there is a need to reduce emissions; however, we cannot immediately stop emissions without severe disruption to our economy, which is also a major driver for national growth.” No one is asking for an immediate cessation of emissions - this is what is known as a “straw man” argument: making an absurd suggestion in the face of a reasonable one in order to divert the attention from the reasonable suggestion. I wouldn’t expect anything else from a politician.

The reasonable suggestion is a year-on-year 10% reduction in emissions, in concert with a movement away from the hierarchical growth-driven economy that guarantees environmental catastrophe.

I think you will find this helpful:

http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/17630

Kind regards

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
www.unsuitablog.org

Remember, if it smells like hypocrisy, it probably is.

(*The disclaimer reads: “If you are not the named  addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.” I was the named addressee.)

There are two phrases that everyone concerned about the environment needs to be aware of - both are widely used by policy makers, and particularly those parts of society involved in environmental subterfuge.

The first is “externalities”, which is another way of saying the emissions or pollution that a company or government doesn’t directly produce, but arises because of activities they are involved in. The second is “international bunkers”, which are greenhouse gas emissions that no one country is willing to take responsibility for.

Both of these phrases should be borne in mind when reading this lengthy extract from a dynamite article in today’s Guardian:

Britain’s climate change emissions may be 12% higher than officially stated, according to a National Audit Office investigation which has strongly criticised the government for using two different carbon accounting systems. There is “insufficient consistency and coordination” in the government’s approach, the NAO said.

Using one system, which the government presents to the UN and in public, Britain emitted 656m tonnes of CO2 in 2005, and claims an improvement on 1990 figures. However, the lesser-known but more accurate data in the government’s national environmental accounts show emissions to be in the region of 733m tonnes in 2005, a NAO report says today.

“There are two different bases on which the government reports emissions: that required for the UN, and the environmental accounts prepared for the Office of National Statistics … [which are] more comprehensive as they include aviation and shipping emissions. They present UK progress in reducing emissions in a markedly different light”, says the report.

The report says there have been “no reductions in UK emissions” if measured by the national accounts method.

The figures contained in the report fly in the face of consistent government claims that it is reducing emissions. Last week the environment minister, Phil Woolas, said in a Commons written answer: “UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 16.4% since 1990. We remain on course to nearly double our Kyoto Protocol target over the 2008-12 period.”

This 12 percent understating of greenhouse gas emissions is unfortunate, to say the least, and puts the lie to the UK government’s claim to be a leader in greenhouse gas management. In fact, the UN allowance for the calculation of national emissions to exclude the “international bunkers” of air and shipping, makes it pretty easy for governments to shrug off these emissions as “not our problem”, when they are quite clearly a big and growing problem that must be tackled with considerable urgency.

The problem with such a hands-off attitude is that there is no ownership of these international bunkers. Just like a corporation that takes no responsibility for the pollution caused by the use of its products, governments can “externalise” with aplomb and pretend they are doing a better job than they really are. This must not be allowed to continue: whenever you see government statistics for greenhouse gas emissions, ask the authors whether they are really true, or not…

All the time the people from Plane Stupid are planning their devastating (sic) t-shirt walk around the new Heathrow Terminal 5 on its day of opening, something far more unexpected is being ignored by the world’s media. Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam is planning a seventh runway. Campaigners opposing this move (via a personal e-mail) take up the story:

“In the Netherlands, the debate is centered on the development of a SEVENTH RUNWAY, called Kaagbaan II, at Schiphol Airport. The expansion may represent a competitive move. If a race for market share between Amsterdam vs.
Heathrow gets started, how far will they go? Amsterdam already has six runways, to Heathrow’s two.”

Even if air transport weren’t as potentially damaging as it promises to be, Schiphol Airport already has ample capacity for massive expansion in its six runways. This suggests very strongly that the motivation may be a combination of land-grabbing by the developers so they can reap the rewards of a large capital project, and a nice bit of posturing by the owners. 

Schiphol Airport is 100% owned by the Dutch national and local government. The interests in operating the airport are public only, therefore you would expect air transport to be right at the bottom of the list of a government that prides itself on being a model of environmental sustainability. Not so.

Go to the Dutch Transport Ministry web site, and you find some hopelessly conflicting statements:

“The Dutch government has set ambitious targets for improving air quality, aiming to reduce CO2 emissions in the Netherlands. The negative environmental impact of increased should be limited, by stimulating innovative solutions in road transport, shipping and aviation.” (from this page)

Just one click away from this is the following:

“As well as having a positive influence on the area surrounding airports there is no doubt that air traffic can also have a negative impact. Although airports create jobs for the local community, they are also a source of noise pollution. Municipalities have limited options for expansion because they must comply with strict regulations governing construction in the areas surrounding airports. In addition, the emission of hazardous substances has an impact on air quality.” (from this page)

Incredibly (or not, depending on how you feel) climate change is not mentioned at all. Guess why. Because, like every other Western government, the Dutch Government are scared of upsetting the companies that operate in their territory.

Money is power, and governments never upset companies that have the potential to make money if they can get away with it. If the Dutch people don’t decide to rapidly change their focus from making money to giving themselves a chance of surviving the next couple of decades before the polders flood, then their government will carry on supporting environmentally damaging projects.

I suppose the only funny thing is that Schiphol Airport is 3 metres below sea level. The flood defences won’t last much longer: what a monumental irony.

With reports that athletes from Western countries are being explicitly told NOT to talk to the media of their concerns about being a national representative in a deeply oppressive country, I have no doubt that the 2008 Olympics is turning into a disgraceful sham of the Olympic ideal which the IOC should be ashamed of ever letting happen in the first place. There is little more to add to the excellent report below, except for add my thanks for the information, and saluting the work of the people behind www.unmadeinchina.org.

Why should we be happy and complacent about the 2008 Beijing Olympics? Now, just as in 1936 at the Berlin Olympics in Germany, nobody minds participating in such an important international event. The countries that took part in that event later regretted the mistake they had made – in the years which followed the Games, a war took place which caused over 50 million deaths: World War II.

Let’s take a look back.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1990. The Cold War was over. The Soviet Union “fell apart.” The Western democracies had virtually won the ideological challenge against the communist regimes, whose champion was the USSR.
What’s happening now?

In 2001 the Western democracies, headed by the United States, shit in their pants from fear and, following the tragic event of the World Trade Center, in December of the same year they gave an enormous, incredible gift to China. Something to put under the Christmas tree.

They let China (without asking for anything in exchange) become a member of the WTO, the World Trade Organization.

Nothing important, a mere pittance!

They could have waited for China to implode, like the Soviet Union did. They could have waited for it to fall like a mature fruit and open itself up to democracy and reform. But NO! Low level bureaucrats, a world-wide lobby of politicians and business people, have decided to allow China to become part of the WTO without asking for anything in return, except for a few vague promises. Does this seem at all reasonable?

The indolent democracies shored up a decrepit system which was in the throes of death. They reanimated it, furnishing it with the oxygen it needed in order to survive. In this way, they perpetrated a regime of oppression, producing disastrous consequences.

Great. Well done.

We are neither happy nor complacent. We are not happily rushing to the party in order to obtain our piece of the Olympic pie that governments, business people, sponsors, committees, associations, midgets, dancers etc. are all running after.  On the contrary, we are worried.

Worried about the democracies who no longer have any minimal level of mental clarity in recognizing their mistakes. Instead, they are creating alarming situations through their mind-sets, which are more concentrated on business than on politics: from the negation of human rights to the imprisonment and murder of political dissidents, from the repression of religious freedom to the absence of free press.

The Chinese really have everything…

A superpower that constantly threatens to swallow up Taiwan, that illegally occupies Tibet, that sends their guard dogs, the Burman generals, to massacre the Buddhist monks who peacefully demonstrate in their own country.

The truth is that China is now exporting oppression, in addition to the toxic and poisonous products it is producing with its billion or more slaves.

But it’s still not too late.

Soon, the Olympic Games will be held.

If the democratic countries are able to regain their mental clarity and recover from the “political Alzheimer’s” they have been suffering from, if they are pressured from below, by public opinion, if a movement that refuses this, that is disgusted by it, begins with the people, the institutions, associations, you who are reading this, then something can be done. It won’t be too late.

We have no desire to honor, praise or publicize the leaders of a bloodthirsty regime.

We grant them no merit or glory.

Let’s unite and boycott this disgrace that’s hanging over us like a natural disaster, like an earthquake, a volcano, a meteorite.

BOYCOTT THE BEIJING OLYMPICS 2008!

(from http://www.unmadeinchina.org/contStd.asp?lang=en&idPag=38)

Whoops, there goes another statistic, out of the window before someone notices it’s gone. The Canadian Province of Alberta have a government that are particularly adept at this move, as I found to my annoyance when searching for some figures while researching my book.

It seemed simple enough: go and find out whether the carbon emissions of Alberta have gone up as result of the mining of oil sands in the Athabasca region. You might remember an article I published about this on The Sietch Blog and a little expose I did on Shell, on this very site not long ago - it’s pretty obvious from these that the emissions are bound to be going up. So what a surprise when I go to look for them, to find that the figures are missing, airbrushed from history to be replaced by the magical economic plaything called “Carbon Intensity” (or in Alberta’s case, Greenhouse Gas Intensity, just to make sure everything is neatly covered).

Apparently the quantity of greenhouse gases went down by 20% between 1994 and 2004, but only when compared to the huge amount of money Alberta is making from oil production; when you consider that Alberta’s Gross Domestic Product  went up by 3.6% per year in the same period  then you realise that, in fact, Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions have actually gone up by 20%.

They don’t want you to know that, of course, and the Canadian Government are more than happy to let them get on with this, because Alberta is the big cheese, the top dog, the grand wizard of economic output:

“The federal government will receive 41 per cent of $123 billion of total government revenues from the oil sands”
(from CAPP, Industry Facts and Information)

Odd then that even the Government of Alberta say, on the very same page they banished the Carbon Emissions from:

“As greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, they contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect, causing the increase in global temperature to take place at a faster rate than has ever been recorded. It is predicted that as temperatures continue to increase in the coming years, we will see more heat waves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.”

When it comes to money versus life, then money always wins where politicians are concerned.

Nice guy Robert Zoellick. Hand-picked by George Bush in 2007 to ensure the interests of the USA remain paramount in the policies of one of the world’s largest money lenders, his replacement of the shamed Paul Wolfowitz was really a like-for-like swap, so it’s no surprise that the World Bank is in the news again as arch hypocrites.

Founded in 1944 to fund the reconstruction of post-war Europe, the World Bank, or International Bank for Reconstruction and Development shifted its focus in the 1950s to funding “development” projects in poor countries. The underlying aim is now, in fact, to ensure that any financial, infrastructure or political systems operating in these countries become market-led, thus allowing corporations and Western government interests (essentially the same thing) to control the resources and public purses of poorer countries. The lending agreements are corrupting, to say the least.

Here is an excerpt from the a conditions of lending agreement with Armenia:

“The Borrower has: (i) adopted a privatization strategy for power sector enterprises satisfactory to the Association; and (ii) issued a letter of invitation for international financial advisors to assist in implementing said privatization strategy.”

That was from 1997. Just in case you think things have changed, this is from a 2005 lending agreement with Serbia:

“In order to increase collections from industrial consumers, political will is required, particularly where enforcement of payments discipline requires disconnection. Evidence from elsewhere in the region suggests that payments problems of this nature are best tackled through restructuring and privatization of large industry.”

So it is no surprise that they are in the news again, this time having been found to be a major lender to projects that are causing massive deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. The Independent newspaper reported at length on this appalling hypocrisy, running counter to many of its now public aims:

“In a single project last year, the IFC – part of the World Bank group – handed $9m to Brazil’s leading beef processor to upgrade its slaughterhouse operations in the Amazon, despite an environmental study, carried out for the IFC, which showed that expansion of a single slaughterhouse in Maraba would lead to the loss of up to 300,000 hectares of forest to make way for more cattle.”

They lie, they manipulate, they are the World Bank.

Yesterday was “Super Tuesday”. It was a big day in American politics and, true to form, the Earth suddenly found itself without a representative in the USA. 

When politics really gets media-savvy then this is what happens:

1) Facts go out of the window; nice words takes over.
2) Public appeal comes to the forefront; politicians have to be seen to be popular,
3) Home issues comprise 90% of the stated policies, especially the “economy” (A.K.A. consumer spending).
4) The planet disappears in a cloud of rhetoric.

I didn’t have to watch the speeches to know this, it’s been going on ever since real power was taken out of the hands of the voting public and placed into the pockets of the super-rich and the corporate lobbyists. What I didn’t expect, though, was how obvious the hole is, once you realise that environmental degradation is - without a shadow of doubt - the most critical issue all humans face.

But I’ll let you decide for yourself how much these candidates (and their families) care about our future…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB16r8K4NHI (Hillary Clinton speech)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUmtQul2ROo (John McCain speech)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOTlQEA8s5o (Barack Obama speech)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qti3G1LMt0 (Mitt Romney’s family speaking)

And don’t let them forget that you know what they forgot.