Yesterday,  I was arrested today along with 11 other Greenpeace activists for hanging a 2300 square foot banner on the face of Mount Rushmore. We hung this banner on the opening day of the G8 meetings in Italy, and while the Senate looks to debate the Waxman-Markey bill - the first piece of comprehensive climate legislation in the US (and industry and many Democrats have rendered the bill more harmful than helpful).

The banner was hung just to the side of Lincoln’s head – and read “America Honors Leader – Not Politicians: Stop Global Warming”. Concurrently in Italy, over 100 Greenpeace activists currently occupied FIVE coal-fired power plants across the country. At least one of these Italian actions is from aa US/Canadian team – and activists from 18 countries are involved in the protests that intend to last the duration of the G8 meeting.

With our best scientists stressing the urgency of the climate crisis – we cannot afford compromises or pandering to dirty industries – we need bold action that reflects the best climate science -  not political convenience. This is the type of bold action that is needed to bring about real action to solve the climate crisis. Whether you believe him or not – Obama often has good rhetoric around the need to address climate change. But we need to take heed from the famous words of Franklin Roosevelt – “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

At the disappointing G8 summit in  Italy, an announcement was made of a new commitment to keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius – a target already endorsed by over 100 nations. While this is certainly a worthy goal, President Obama and the other G8 leaders did not commit to short-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to achieving this long-term target. Despite promising to “restore science to its rightful place” in the administration – Obama has been conveniently sliding around emissions targets, and arbitrarily pushing baselines dates for emissions reductions from 1990 levels (where most climate science has been based) to 2005 levels. The G8 statement for emissions targets read a fuzzy….“of 1990 or more later years”.

The actions at Rushmore and across Italy are meant  to put some heat on Obama and world leaders – and create political space and broader awareness to the urgency and seriousness of the climate crisis. Already, we were the #4 story on  CNN, the lead story on Yahoo.com, and featured in Newsweek, Guardian UK, Fox, NBC, Washington Post, ABC, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, and hundreds of more major media outlets. In addition to doing traditional media work – we also had streaming video and photos from multiple perspectives being watched live on the Greenpeace website – with thousands of viewers watching the action in real time. (Yes, we had helmet cams). We were live-blogging while on the ropes, as well as using Twitter and other social networking forums to make sure the world saw our message. All of you were vital in helping this story gain such a huge audience – from posting it on Facebook, telling your friends, and re-Tweeting the story.

You can see further photos, video, and press release on the action at Greenpeace.org More updates still to come!

Posted in global warming

Cross-Posted from: here

I have a column out today about how despite the fact that every elected official in Maryland talks about the need for saving the Chesapeake Bay, the policies we have been passing(and not passing) are contradictory. A lot of these issues such as highway construction over mass transit and unchecked growth are interconnected with our dependency on fossil fuels and our contribution to global warming. This is one of my harsher columns, but called for in my opinion. Sources are at the bottom.

Chesapeake Bay: Speake of the devil

MATT DERNOGA

Issue date: 7/9/09

Save the Bay! No really, I mean it. Back in 1987, federal and state officials set a target to finish restoring the Chesapeake Bay by 2000, whose value 20 years ago was pegged at $678 billion by University of Maryland economists. Inflation alone would push that value over a trillion dollars. Maybe we were counting on 2000 being the end of the world, but when computers failed to take over and clean the bay themselves, we were forced to set a target of 2010. Whoops.

So now the Environmental Protection Agency and state officials, including a number from Maryland, have gotten serious. They’ve said enough is enough: It’s time to set a target to which leaders can be held accountable. The new deadline for getting the bay off the list of the nation’s most impaired waters is now 2025, with two-year milestone goals sprinkled in between. Governor Martin O’Malley boldly declared Maryland would hit its own nutrient reduction goals by 2020.

O’Malley and every other elected official in Annapolis will tell you they’re for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. It’s as easy as saying you’re for fighting cancer or for education. A closer look at our own state policies provides a clue as to why despite lawmakers’ happy proclamations on behalf of the bay, it still remains in shambles.

Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that we decided to have the words “Treasure the Chesapeake” engraved on the back of license plates? License plates which happen to be attached to cars running on roads which has sediment pollution runoff that is ruining the Chesapeake. This is symbolic of our problem. Our largest expenditure to affect the bay’s health thus far consists of billions of dollars spent on the maligned InterCounty Connector. This road blows through the Anacostia Watershed, which feeds into the bay. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) is now considering granting a permit for the cross-county connector. This new Charles County highway would drive right through the Mattawoman Watershed, which flows into the bay.

Annapolis recently ensured we’ll continue our happy highway construction by weakening a smart growth bill this past session that would have put some teeth behind responsible development and anti-sprawl benchmarks. Poor land-use planning and highway construction have become coordinated catastrophes that make our clean-up deadline of 2025 a flatline. From his policies, it’s tough to tell whether O’Malley’s personal 2020 target is to clean up Maryland’s pollution contribution or finish the bay off once and for all.

The policies’ harmful effects are magnified by MDE dragging its feet on enforcing stormwater management rules passed in early 2007. The Stormwater Management Act has encountered two years worth of deliberations by MDE to figure out what to do with it. This culminated in a “please?” ordinance to county governments and local municipalities to only mitigate the runoff impact of 50 percent of impervious surfaces for redevelopment projects. Half-hearted by both my math and their effort.

News flash to Annapolis and O’Malley: When you build mega-highways across waterways which connect to the bay; when you water down smart growth bills that would encourage and enforce responsible development; when you water down our stormwater management laws so our runoff continues to pollute the bay – you’re not saving the bay. You’re killing it.

Now if only we could fit that onto the back of a license plate.

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at mdernoga@umd.edu

Sources:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/04102009/polinew200336_32477.shtml (death of smart growth bill)

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2009/06/report_calls_for_tough_love_to.html (blown deadline)

http://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/2009/05/another-deadline-for-cleaning-up-the-chesapeake-bay-more-than-a-decade-and-a-half-into-the-future-after-two-blown-deadlines.html (blown deadline)

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/05/13-34/form_anniversaries.html (2025 target)

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2395 (value of the Bay)

http://www.governor.maryland.gov/pressreleases/090512.asp (O’Malley setting higher goal for Bay)

http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1147 (on Cross County Connector)

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/swm2007.asp (Stormwater management Act, to go to next page to see delays, go down to bottom and check archives)

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/ModelStormwaterOrdinanceJune2009.pdf (pg 13 on stormwater management)

Posted in global warming

This afternoon in l’Aquila, I just had the displeasure of sitting in the front row of the press conference for US President ‘Oh-Bummer’, Australian Prime Minister ‘Krudd’ and Climate-Sceptic Italian PM Berlusconi.

Coverage of the conference is, predictibly, fairly positive:

But from a climate perspective, basically, it sucked. This is a blog post full of regret – regret for doing nothing, and letting something crap happen.

I knew that Obama was speaking there, and so I prepared a fun, media-worthy 30 second intervention to yell out during question time from the journalists. But suddenly, when ‘my’ Prime Minister Kevin Rudd finished speaking, the leaders all shook hands and quickly exited the stage, being ushered off out of the building and to ’safety’, away from the press. There was no question time, and no chance for questioning or commenting on what was announced. Reporters could only ‘report’ on the leaders words, and received no alternative criticism.

It was all over so quickly, and from the moment that it finished, until now, I’ve been regretting just sitting there in the front row and listening passively to their announcements, patiently waiting for my turn that never came.

The press conference followed the conclusion of today’s MEF (Major Economies Forum), a meeting of the 17 highest emitting nations, collectively responsible for more than 75% of global emissions. This month’s MEF was held in conjuction with the G8, in Italy.

If you haven’t already heard from the media machine, Kevin Rudd today ‘officially launched’ the GCCSI – the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute – now officially backed by MEF nations. Australia has ‘kick started’ the initiative with a $100bn yearly investment into ‘clean coal’ research, and it’s already begun functioning.

The central objective of the GCCSI is:

to accelerate the commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, to ensure their valuable contribution in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Frankly, the last thing that we need right now is more investment in coal – whether ‘clean’ or not. We need to be phasing out fossil fuels, as fast as possible.

I’m seriously kicking myself. Why didn’t I stand up and yell? I found out afterward that it was being live-streamed on the BBC. There were 50 other cameras there, the room was full with 300 reporters. All the G8 heads of state were in the room, plus Australian climate Minister Penny Wong. Any expression of dissent would have gone worldwide instantly, if I had followed through.

But I just wasn’t angry enough, and I wasn’t thinking straight. I was exhausted from overworking myself the last three days, due in large part to the two-hour transit to and from the conference centre each day. I’ve never seen a better argument for being a sustainable activist – because you never know when your fullest mental capacities will be required. I only knew one hour beforehand that the conference would happen, and was totally underprepared.

Since it finished, I’ve been running over what I would have said if I’d had my wits about me and judged the situation well. It is all so clear in hindsight. I should have jumped up and yelled something like this:

“Kevin Rudd, that’s bullshit! Clean coal is not a real solution to climate change. The only reason that you’re is investing in CCS is because of the huge amounts of coal to be mined in Australia, for profit! More coal investment is the last thing that we need right now. What we need to solve climate change is a global institute for solar and wind. Renewable energy has never seen that scale of investment. This is clearly a case of vested interests influencing government policy. And Obama, surely you know that this is the truth. How can you stand there and just let him say this?”

If only I had actually done it. I would sacrifice a lot to have a time machine go back a few hours and try it again.

As Rudd started to speak, other G8 leaders – Gordon Brown, Taro Aso, Sarkozy etc – walked out on the stage and Obama remarked to Rudd ‘It looks like you’ve got backup.’ And he needed it. The bombshell of more investment in fossil fuels as a ’solution’ to climate change was cemented by those leaders shaking hands on stage afterward. It was surreal to be in the presence of it. It all seemed so fake and unreal – inaccessible, like watching TV.

In a haze, I walked back to the G8 media centre, passing by a group of Australian government bureaucrats handing out GCCSI propaganda to all the journalists. Disappointed with myself and gradually getting more enraged. When I got back, I ran around the press centre to all the media outlets, saying that I am Australian and that I’d like to provide comment to any stories that they’re filing about Kevin Rudd’s announcement. But they weren’t interested. The media cycle was wrapping up for the day and the announcement was over.

Evidently, my opinions just aren’t that important at the G8. There was no space to express them, and I felt totally powerless.

But I suppose, that isn’t so surprising, as I was just an individual, attending the G8.

So very true to the criticisms often expressed of it, the G8 succeeded in shutting down debate and creating the illusion of progress. The barrier of the stage and the formal, for-power-holders-only atmosphere – not to mention the fact that I was one of few activists actually inside the G8, due to the opaque accreditation process – meant that I lost my nerve and couldn’t find the courage or space to tell it like it is to the global media there. My heart is very heavy, and this blog post is the next best way that I have to express my views.

With only a few months until Copenhagen, this MEF announcement may have been one of the last high-profile chances to demonstrate the failure of developed nations to actually address climate change. I was there, I had the chance, and I blew it. From now, the only media comment that we can get on this CCS Institute is national-level at best. Now, the GCCSI and the G8 have cemented a false appearance of climate leadership, in the eyes of the global public.

To conclude, today I learnt a three valuable activist lessons:

1. Express dissent at every opportunity. Never hold it inside. Always tell it like it is.

2. Get enough sleep to think straight

3. Don’t expect governments to do the right thing – we’ve got to push for the solutions ourselves.

Posted in Australia, carbon sequestration, Coal, Copenhagen 2009, Corruption, g8, global warming, Government, International Affairs, United States

 Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to witness a massive street protest against corrupt government policies in the city of Iquitos, Peru.  Hundreds of people moved in a wave that held up traffic as they marched down the streets.  It appeared to be a general protest against corrupt government practices in Peru, and the policies of President Alan Garcia in particular.  There were marchers focused on workers´ rights, education reform, and the pillaging of the Amazon.  A large contingent of indigenous activists called out the Peruvian government on last month´s massacre of indigenous people in the city of Bagua.  Toward the back of the parade, another group waved flags supporting Ollanta Humala – one of the major left-wing candidates for president running in Peru´s 2011 elections. 

All-in-all, the event was an inspiring glimpse of a wave of progressive activism which appears to be sweeping across Peru.  Unfortunately, I won´t be able to post any of the photos or video footage I took until I return to the US at the end of this month – but look for them on this blog around August 1st!

I was naturally drawn to the contingent of indigenous protesters as I followed the parade.  These activists held signs denouncing the government´s behavior in Bagua and the seizure of indigenous lands for industrial exploitation, and calling on the Peruvian government to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.  I also could not help but notice the large block of students and faculty from the nearby university – our activist peers in this country.  Though the parade was flanked by police on all sides, the atmosphere was less than tense.  Some of the police were smiling, and they didn´t seem concerned at the sight of a couple of US college students running after the parade taking pictures.  However atrociously the Peruvian police behaved in Bagua, in Iquitos there seemed to be little issue with the police, for the moment at least.  A few parents were pushing baby carriages in the parade, and people of all ages joined in.  On the sidewalks, people came out of the shops to watch. 

I´ve written more about the fight against fossil fuels in Peru, and how it connects to policy in the US, here.  I am not an expert on current politics in Peru, and I don´t know enough about any specific candidate for the 2011 elections to know whether he or she would represent a major improvement over Alan Garcia.  However, dissatisfaction with the current pro-industry president is at an all-time high in Peru, and a wave of progressive activism seems to be gaining strength in this country.  The horror of the Bagua Massacre appears simply to have strengthened peoples´ resolve to end government corruption, and fueled the anger of activists.  It´s just possible that Peru could be the next country where we see a power shift in favor of a socially just environmentally sustainable future for all.

Posted in Americas, Climate Justice, Corruption, Deforestation, Extraction, Government, Impacted Communities, Indigenous

By Teryn Norris
Originally published by AlterNet
July 8, 2009

The recent passage of the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) through the U.S. House of Representatives drew different reactions from climate and environmental advocates. But one key perspective shared by most advocates is that, despite its weaknesses, the bill is a good first step. ACES builds a solid foundation for future progress on U.S. climate mitigation, the argument goes, and climate advocates will be well-positioned to strengthen the legislation in years ahead.

But what are the prospects for strengthening ACES in future years? This question is subject to many uncertainties, depending on the vagaries of the political climate. But a closer examination reveals that ACES could create a “super-lobby” of interest groups that will significantly diminish the possibility of achieving future reforms.

The newest climate lobby — and potentially one of the most powerful in years to come — is the financial industry. If ACES is signed into law, the global carbon market could become the largest commodity market in the world. According to Bart Chilton, Commissioner of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), “The potential size and scope of a structured carbon emissions market in the US is unequivocally vast. It is certainly possible that the emissions markets could overtake all other commodity markets.”

A growing number of analysts are expressing concerns about the emergence of a new financial climate lobby and the potential for gaming in a new U.S. carbon market. A recent report by Friends of Earth (FOE), “Subprime Carbon,” argued that cap and trade proposals like ACES could create a system with similar financial and political interests to the housing market bubble. Just as financial practices during the housing bubble caused deteriorating standards in mortgages, cap and trade could create “subprime” carbon offsets — offsets that do not represent actual emission reductions and carbon derivatives based on future carbon reductions with high risk of not being fulfilled.

“We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market,” says Robert Shapiro, former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of the U.S. Climate Task Force.

The best projections on the size of the U.S. carbon market that would be created by ACES range between one and two trillion dollars by 2020. The CFTC estimates a $2 trillion carbon futures market within five years, with up to 180 million private contracts per year — larger than the sweet crude oil and natural gas markets combined. This estimate was echoed by a Point Carbon report in 2008 on the potential impacts of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, and a recent report by New Energy Finance projects ACES will create a $1.2 trillion carbon market in the U.S. by 2020.

Wall Street firms recognize the lucrative potential of the carbon market and have already stepped up their lobbying efforts. According to Public Integrity, “Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, insurance companies like AIG and private equity firms had virtually no reps on Capitol Hill working on global warming policy in 2003; by last year, they had about 130 climate lobbyists, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows. About 20 additional lobbyists worked for firms and organizations wholly dedicated to carbon marketing last year.”

The policy demands of these financial firms may vary, but most will push for weaker regulatory standards on carbon markets, larger volumes of carbon offset authorization, and provisions to increase the volatility of carbon prices, all of which would hinder progress on reducing U.S. emissions. For example, the financial industry will continually call for carbon allowance trading to be allowed OTC (over-the-counter), a form of derivatives trading that gives firms and traders the most leeway to leverage, speculate, arbitrage, and maximize profit by avoiding regulations. And the greater the volatility in the carbon allowance and offset market – and the larger the volume of offsets allowed – the more trading, arbitrage, and speculation these firms can benefit from.

The financial industry has already begun lobbying for weaker regulatory standards on carbon markets. According to the FOE report, “Carbon markets [are] particularly vulnerable to inappropriate lobbying and regulatory capture… Carbon trading firms have strongly advocated self-regulation as a way to govern this market… In a letter to Senators Feinstein and Snowe, who introduced a carbon market governance bill, the International Emissions Trading Association asserted that ‘the market itself recognizes the importance of integrity and exerts discipline on participants,’” citing a number of self-policing tactics.

Indeed, a significant issue that arose during deliberations on ACES was which agency or agencies would oversee what could become trillion-dollar markets for trading in emissions allowances and offsets, and related financial products. The ACES bill would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee emissions allowance and offset markets. But it leaves it up to an interagency working group to decide where jurisdiction over the larger derivatives market will lie. According to a recent investigation by Mother Jones:

“[The] bill leaves many vital specifics to the White House, directing the president to form a task force to determine precisely how to avoid “fraud, market manipulation and excess speculation.” Andy Stevenson, finance adviser at the National Resources Defense Council, says, “I would feel comfortable if much more of it were explicit.”

The financial industry is one of several industry groups that may join in opposition to future policy reform, particularly around the use of carbon offsets. Utilities and fossil fuel industry groups are likely to continue lobbying for an increase in the authorized volume of relatively cheap domestic and international carbon offsetting to avoid the more expensive task of reducing their own emissions. The demand for an increase in offsetting is likely to grow increasingly large after the lowest-cost emission abatement options are used in the early years of cap and trade.

The use of offsets to meet emissions reduction targets has very large implications when evaluating the impacts of ACES. Offset utilization may in fact be the single greatest variable in the proposal determining both economy-wide emissions reductions and reductions in capped sectors of the economy, established carbon prices, revenues raised through auctioning allowances and the revenues dedicated to clean energy, levels of private investment in clean energy driven by the program, and the revenues transferred from households and other domestic energy end-users to international interests through offset purchases.

In addition to utilities and fossil fuel firms, producers and sellers of carbon offsets will push for weaker evaluation standards in order to increase their potential sales. This was on full display during the House debate over ACES, with numerous agricultural interests successfully lobbying for the sympathetic Department of Agricultural to have jurisdiction over domestic agricultural offsets, instead of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It wasn’t only the agricultural lobby pushing for weak oversight of the new carbon offset industry, however. The largest proponent was the House Committee on Agriculture itself, with Chairman Collin Peterson deftly maneuvering to strike a deal with Congressman Waxman, holding his committee members’ votes hostage unless his demands were met. This example is testament to the fact that many policymakers will oppose future measures to strengthen oversight over carbon offsets and other provisions in order to protect domestic industries.

Carbon offsets are just one example of how ACES could create a powerful lobby opposed to future policy improvements. Similar principals will apply to other areas of the legislation, such as allowance distribution, emission reduction targets, renewable portfolio standards, and more. For example, reducing the free allocation of allowances to utilities and other incumbent energy industries in order to increase funding for clean energy technologies may be increasingly difficult in the future. The bill doesn’t begin phasing out these free allocations until the mid-2020s, and existing subsidies have a long track record of producing entrenched interests — agricultural subsidies being just one example. Free allowances will also shield the profits of these industries, ensuring they remain powerful lobbying forces. And as the cheapest, low-hanging fruit of emissions reductions becomes depleted, the calls for weaker legislation may only grow stronger.

The current moment may offer progressives and climate advocates the single best opportunity in a generation to achieve the policies necessary to overcome climate change and build a clean energy economy. Unfortunately, progressives have so far failed to seize the moment, and the result is a critically weak climate bill which sows the seeds of its own weakening by creating a new climate super-lobby. ACES must be strengthened now, or our climate opportunity will be jeopardized.

For more information, see the Breakthrough Institute’s analysis here:
Climate Bill Analysis Part 19: ACES Could Align Economic Interests to Weaken Climate Legislation

Teryn Norris is a Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, a public policy think tank based in Oakland, CA. William Oman, a Breakthrough Fellow, contributed research to this article.

Posted in Carbon Trading, Climate Policy, Corporate Responsibility, Corruption, global warming, greenwashing, Renewable Energy, United States