Will the costs of “loss & damage” be shared by polluting nations?

From an Article by Bob Berwyn and Zoha Tunio, Inside Climate News, Nov. 19, 2022

SHARM El-SHEIKH, Egypt—A new COP27 agreement that establishes a funding mechanism to compensate developing countries for losses and damages caused by global warming may be the biggest breakthrough in global climate policy since the 2015 Paris Agreement. If it sticks?

The deal was reached as two weeks of nail-biting negotiations here went into overtime with little to show for all the talk. Many negotiators arrived at the conference halls Saturday morning with their suitcases packed for the trip home while facing the prospect of being called out for failing to make progress on one of the key promises of the United Nation’s effort to address increasingly severe climate change impacts like floods, droughts and deadly heat waves.

Along with finding ways to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to slow global warming, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992 to address the fundamental inequalities of climate change impacts. Developed countries in the Global North are responsible for about 79 percent of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, but less developed countries in the Global South have taken the biggest hit from climate change and don’t have the financial and technical resources to recover from them.

That disparity is at the heart of global climate justice and the 1992 United Nations climate framework committed all the parties to take “into account their common but differentiated responsibilities,” with developed countries committing to assist developing countries “that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects … by providing new and additional financial resources.”

The 2015 Paris Agreement added more detail by recognizing “the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events” like sea level rise.

“The issue of climate justice has been at the heart of the climate negotiations from its inception over three decades ago,” said Lavanya Rajamani, an international law expert who advised African nations at COP27. “Yet it is only now that its crucial importance in addressing climate change is being realized. The U.N. climate regime needs to place as much emphasis on adaptation, loss and damage and support as it has on target-setting for mitigation, in fairness to vulnerable nations, and in light of the increasing incidence of devastating impacts as mitigation efforts fall short.”

On Saturday at COP27, 30 years after those first promises were made, developed countries finally agreed to “establish new funding arrangements for assisting developing countries in responding to loss and damage, including a focus on addressing loss and damage by providing and assisting in mobilizing new and additional resources.”

The 11th hour deal was sealed Saturday afternoon when the United States reversed its earlier opposition and agreed to the creation of a specific loss and damage fund, surprising climate activists who just hours earlier had been excoriating the U.S. for its decades of obstruction.

This response to the long-standing demand by developing countries was overdue, said Harjeet Singh, who leads global political strategy for Climate Action Network International, an umbrella organization representing 190 civil society groups in 130 countries.

Intensifying global warming impacts require a systemic response, not just piecemeal post-disaster relief efforts, he said. “Humanitarian aid is welcome, but was never sufficient to help people recover from these impacts,” he said, “We wanted the U.N. climate change system to come in and actually create a mechanism that can help people at scale.”

Under the framework U.N. climate treaty, “Countries with the greatest historical responsibility for emissions, and the greatest capacity to act, have committed to bear the costs of climate change,” said Brian O’Callaghan, lead researcher with Oxford University’s economic recovery project. “Rich countries should act with speed or otherwise increase their future liability.”

The complex negotiations on loss and damage featured shifting alliances among various groups of countries that, at different times in the process, put competing proposals on the table. Ahead of COP27, United States climate envoy John Kerry was careful not to commit to a specific loss and damage mechanism, promising only that the U.S. was open to talking about the issue in the coming years.

Singh said that before COP27 started, the United States appeared to be opposed to the creation of a specific loss and damage fund, preferring to talk about potentially restructuring existing climate finance mechanisms to address those climate impacts that go beyond countries’ capacities to adapt.

The collective push from developing countries and resistance from a large part of the developed world led some attendees to fear a repeat of COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where a similar rift between the wealthy nations most responsible for climate change and poorer ones that are enduring its worst impacts led to an impasse.

At the end of the two-week talks in Copenhagen, world leaders dropped many of their goals for the negotiations and significantly lowered their targets. The parties agreed to recognize the scientific evidence for keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, but made no tangible commitments to reduce emissions in order to achieve that goal.

But this year, civil society groups applied relentless pressure during the talks, and Singh credited activists with keeping negotiators and the public focused on the topic of loss and damage. At the same time, developing countries maintained a unified front in the talks, “which actually made a huge difference in getting this over the line,” he said. Ultimately, it was the United States taking the step and backing the loss and damage funding mechanism that made the difference, he added.

The fact that the agreement came during a climate summit on a continent enduring some of the world’s most severe climate impacts gave it particular relevance. During the two-week conference, 14 flood alerts were issued for Africa, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

“After 30 years a loss and damage fund is coming home and it’s coming home on African soil,” said Mohamed Adow, director of energy and climate change for Power Shift Africa on Saturday afternoon during a press conference by Climate Action Network International.

As written, the loss and damage agreement includes views from all countries, but discussions about “some of the thorny issues around who will pay and where it (the funding mechanism) is going to be located have been moved to next year,” Singh said. “In fact, that’s exactly what we as civil society … were also demanding, because the most important thing to be done here was to establish the fund. You cannot do everything in two weeks.”

Yet to be determined is how the fund will be administered, who will pay into it, and which countries will receive money. He said there is still a long road ahead before it actually starts helping people hurt by climate impacts, “but the important thing is we now can send a message of hope to people who are suffering right now.”

Q.E.D.

Senator Manchin struggles to find common ground

From the Article by Karl Evers-Hillstrom, The Hill News Service, August 13, 2022

Coal country is still reeling from Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to back a sweeping climate and energy package that will accelerate the nation’s transition away from coal.

In the Mountain State, the once-burgeoning coal industry says it feels betrayed, displaced coal workers are celebrating the bill’s black lubenefits and Republicans seeking Manchin’s seat in 2024 are licking their chops.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes several Appalachia-centric measures, including subsidies to build renewable energy projects on former coal fields and the permanent extension of a tax on coal companies that funds benefits for miners suffering from black lung disease.

Advocates who fought hard for the black lung fund extension — they warned Manchin that the benefits were at risk when the excise tax expired last year — hailed its inclusion as a breakthrough victory for workers who don’t typically wield influence in Washington.

“We were surprised. We thought it’d be a four-year or 10-year [extension],” said Gary Hairston, a former West Virginia coal miner of 27 years who now leads the National Black Lung Association. “So, when we got it permanently, we might not need to worry about it no more.”

The coal industry, on the other hand, attacked Manchin for making the tax permanent and pushing policies to subsidize alternative energy sources. Leaders of Appalachian coal groups, including the West Virginia Coal Association, wrote in a recent letter that the excise tax will cost them tens of millions of dollars and hurt their ability to compete and keep energy costs stable. “This legislation is so egregious, it leaves those of us that call Senator Manchin a friend, shocked and disheartened,” they wrote.

Backlash from the coal industry, conservative groups and GOP lawmakers has opened up an opportunity for political challengers ahead of Manchin’s upcoming reelection battle. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) is running television ads accusing the Democratic senator of crossing the state’s coal industry, an apparent signal that he plans to challenge him in 2024. “Alex Mooney won’t let Joe Manchin and Joe Biden destroy our coal industry and devastate West Virginia,” the ad tells viewers.

Cecil Roberts, a longtime Manchin ally who leads the United Mine Workers of America, the nation’s largest coal miners’ union, called those critiques “absolute bull” in a recent statement. He noted that the bill includes tax credits for carbon capture that could extend the life of coal plants and authorizes $4 billion in tax credits exclusively for companies that create new clean energy jobs in coal communities. “I cannot understand how any politician who actually cares about working West Virginians and the quality of their lives can trash this bill,” Roberts said. “They should be thanking Senator Manchin, not attacking him.”

In a response to the West Virginia Coal Association, Manchin noted that the excise tax has consistently been extended at the same rate for nearly four decades and said that coal companies can take advantage of a $5 billion fund in the climate bill to boost their efficiency. “The big pushback I’m getting from the coal operators right now is having to pay the black lung fund, and that’s a shame,” Manchin told reporters on a recent conference call.

Manchin added that despite his best efforts to boost coal, its prevalence has declined under both Democratic and Republican presidents, indicating that his state needs to take advantage of emerging energy technologies to keep up. Hundreds of coal-fired power plants have shut down over the last decade amid the emergence of cleaner and more efficient energy sources, causing pain for Appalachia’s coal mining companies.

At its peak, the West Virginia coal industry employed more than 125,000 employees, a figure that dropped to less than 12,000 in addition to 36,000 independent contractors, according to estimates from the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training.

While they’ve been slow to adopt clean energy policies, West Virginia legislators in recent years passed bills to boost solar projects despite opposition from the coal industry.

The Nature Conservancy and West Virginia Chamber of Commerce released a survey last year finding that most West Virginians believe that the state should reduce its reliance on coal and shift to renewable energy sources, a significant shift in public opinion.

“This is a traditional energy state, but folks in West Virginia are also interested in looking at what the new energy economy can bring to the state in terms of jobs, and economic development and economic diversification,” said Thomas Minney, West Virginia state director at the Nature Conservancy.

As part of his climate deal, Manchin also secured an agreement from Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats will pass legislation to expedite approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which spans hundreds of miles in West Virginia and Virginia. Manchin says the natural gas pipeline, which has drawn opposition from local environmental and property rights advocates, would create 2,500 jobs in his home state and help make up for coal’s decline.

Still, it’s not clear whether deep-red West Virginia will embrace Manchin’s climate deal, given that his popularity soared around the time that he told Democrats he couldn’t support the $2 trillion Build Back Better Act.

From the first quarter of 2021 to 2022, Manchin’s approval rating shot up 17 points to 57 percent, the biggest increase among all senators over that period, according to Morning Consult. Nearly 7 in 10 West Virginia Republicans expressed support for the Democratic senator as he railed against his own party’s spending package.

QUOTATION ~ Change is inevitable in life. You can either resist it and potentially get run over by it, or you can choose to cooperate with it, adapt to it, and learn how to benefit from it. Jack Canfield.

Many feel Sen. Manchin has been an agent for fossil fuels

From an Article by John Bachtell, People’s World, August 3, 2022

Senate Democrats appear on the verge of passing historic legislation to accelerate a national transition to clean energy, reduce energy costs, create tens of thousands of union jobs, and address environmental injustice.

The surprise agreement, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin, W.Va, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, N.Y. All 50 Democratic senators, including Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema, must support the IRA to pass. Every Republican, fossil fuel driller, and big corporation fiercely oppose it.

Environmental, labor, and social justice organizations, climate scientists, policymakers, and federal, state, and local Democratic lawmakers hailed the deal. They called for swift passage despite shortcomings and concessions to the fossil fuel industry.

The turn of events happened after Manchin torpedoed the Build Back Better (BBB) legislation while a record heat wave baked much of the planet, sparking wildfires and causing flash flooding in Kentucky. Most assumed climate legislation was dead for the remainder of this Congress.

The result was a bitter backlash directed against Manchin, protests, a sit-in by Congressional staffers, and calls for Biden to declare a National Emergency on climate. Guarantees for fossil leasing, extending financing of the Black Lung Trust Fund, separately expediting the permitting process for the Mountain Valley Pipeline across West Virginia, and convincing Manchin the bill would reduce inflation may have convinced him to agree.

The IRA marks the biggest investment in clean energy in U.S. history and is the result of decades of movement-building and battles to pass transformative climate legislation against entrenched opposition. “We’re going to look back in 50 years and say this was the beginning of a great transition,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.

“Rhodium Group modeling shows the IRA can absolutely cut carbon pollution by 40% by 2030. With additional executive and state action, we could be back on track to hit President Biden’s critical goal of a 50% cut this decade,” said Dr. Leah Stokes, leader of Evergreen Action and a climate policy maker involved in crafting the BBB legislation.

According to climate scientists, the world must reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 to avoid surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius and triggering far more catastrophic changes.

The bill strips from the BBB some provisions like the child tax credit. However, it retains most of the original bill’s critical programs, although at lower funding levels. They include $369 billion in funding and tax credits to accelerate the transition toward clean energy technologies, reduction in methane gas emissions, and investments in agriculture, rural economic development, and restoration.

It establishes environmental, labor, and equity standards in public investment. It directs about $60 billion in funding to historically discriminated and vulnerable communities suffering the worst climate change consequences.

One such mechanism is a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to make community renewable energy investments. The climate bank would lend $28 billion for “low-interest loans across the country. A small town in Ohio could say we want to do over our public housing stock completely. Okay, come to the climate bank. Or a community that wants to install solar panels on their town dump. Okay, we’ll help finance it,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

The bill contains tax credits for consumers to purchase new and used electric vehicles and partially funds the conversion of the USPS truck fleet to electric vehicles. It provides corporate tax credits to produce solar and offshore wind farms, geothermal infrastructure, batteries, and green technology production facilities.

The bill makes it easier for working-class households to winterize their homes and buy electric heat pumps and induction stoves. Studies show the more renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other products manufactured, the cheaper they become, which is not the case with fossil fuel energy production.

The bill also allocates $64 billion to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies through 2024 and allows Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices with Big Pharma.

Lawmakers maintain transitioning to renewables would also reduce energy costs and address Manchin’s stated concern about inflation. “Fossil fuels have driven 41% of inflation,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “So, when we talk about investments in clean energy, that is one of the biggest components of price increases consumers face. Households will save on average about $1,800 a year in energy bills.”

Lawmakers drafted the bill to bypass Republican obstruction through the budget reconciliation process. It needs every Democrat on board, and with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote, only 51 votes are required rather than the 60 votes under the Senate filibuster rule.

Sinema has been silent on her support and is under enormous pressure from giant corporations to kill the bill. Her concerns seem to revolve around taxes on the wealthy and corporations, which raise $739 billion in revenue to cover the bill’s costs. The IRA does not raise taxes on workers making less than $400,000 annually.

Sinema has repeatedly expressed opposition to the “carried interest charge,” a tax on profits hedge fund managers make insisted on by Manchin. The far more significant issue is corporate opposition to a minimum 15% tax on corporate profits over $1 billion. Sinema has previously supported the tax, but the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, which shower her with contributions, wants it defeated.

“If Sinema, a one-time Green Party activist, derailed the most significant federal climate bill ever while Arizona faces mounting impacts of climate change, it would be an incredible repudiation of everything she’s stood for her entire life,” tweeted Atlantic columnist Ronald Brownstein. Markey also indicated senators would work with Sinema and get the deal done one way or another.

The IRA comes with difficult compromises to gain the vote of Manchin. The bill mandates onshore and offshore lease sales, but they are to be more restricted and carry higher royalty costs. Ultimately, the plummeting production costs of renewables will make oil drilling unnecessary.

Besides, the total impact of the new leasing on the climate could be minimal, according to one study. “For every ton of emissions increases generated by [the bill’s] oil and gas provisions, at least 24 tons of emissions are avoided by the other provisions,” concludes Energy Innovation.

NOTE ~ See the original Article (here) for four more paragraphs of political commentary.

Virginia environmental groups call for a declaration of climate emergency & protest the Mountain Valley Pipeline in Richmond (8/2/22)

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, August 2, 2022

A deal between Democratic congressional leadership and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III over sweeping federal climate legislation could force the completion of Mountain Valley Pipeline, according to a one-page summary of the agreement’s provisions obtained by The Washington Post.

The final item on the summary reads: “Complete the Mountain Valley Pipeline.”

Since the surprise 11th-hour deal between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Manchin resurrected President Joe Biden’s climate change agenda last week, Virginia environmental groups and many landowners in the state’s southwestern region have been waiting uneasily to learn the agreement’s terms.

Numerous national news outlets reported that Manchin’s support was linked to promises by Democratic leaders to pass separate legislation smoothing the fraught federal permitting process for fossil fuel pipelines such as Mountain Valley, a 303-mile-long conduit planned to carry gas from the Marcellus shale fields of West Virginia into Virginia.

The summary released Monday, which a Manchin spokesperson confirmed Tuesday reflects the provisions the senator is seeking, offers the clearest look yet at what those promises are. For Mountain Valley, the asks are twofold: First, require federal agencies “to take all necessary actions to permit the construction and operation” of the pipeline. Second, transfer jurisdiction over legal cases concerning the pipeline from the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to the D.C. Circuit.

Lee Williams, director of Green New Deal Virginia and advocacy chair of the Richmond-area Falls of the James chapter of the Sierra Club, reacted to the proposal with dismay. Environmental groups “want everything” that’s in the federal climate bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, she said. “We’ve been asking for it for the last decade. Unfortunately, to get Sen. Manchin to vote for it, they literally threw Southwest Virginia under the bus.”

Exactly what Democratic leaders promised Manchin, however, remains unclear. Despite the one-page summary that has been released, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine (D) said during a Tuesday teleconference that “there is no connection between voting on the Inflation Reduction Act and then having to vote for the Mountain Valley Pipeline or a permitting bill.” Also, “The deal was (that) in exchange for getting an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act, we will have the opportunity to debate and vote on permitting improvements, but no one’s made commitments about how they’re going to vote, and I’m certainly not going to make a commitment until I see what that bill is,” he said.

Valeria Rivadeneira, a spokesperson for Virginia Sen. Mark Warner (D), said the senator would review the proposal “once the full legislative text is made available.”

Originally expected to be completed by 2018, Mountain Valley Pipeline has been hampered by staunch opposition in both Virginia and West Virginia, hundreds of environmental violations and a string of successful legal challenges in the 4th Circuit that have repeatedly stripped the project of necessary federal permits. Construction has proved especially halting along a Southwest Virginia corridor that crosses through part of the Jefferson National Forest in Giles, Craig and Montgomery counties.

This summer, with few immediate breakthroughs evident, the developers sought permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has authority over pipeline construction, to extend its deadline another four years.

With delays and costs mounting, investors have become increasingly skeptical that the pipeline will ever be completed. In a February filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, project investor NextEra Energy wrote that “continued legal and regulatory challenges have resulted in a very low probability of pipeline completion.”

The deal with Manchin could change all that. Amid news of the agreement, shares in lead pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream soared to a three-month high Tuesday.

“MVP is being recognized as a critical infrastructure project that is essential for our nation’s energy security, energy reliability, and ability to effectively transition to a lower-carbon future,” Equitrans spokesperson Natalie Cox wrote in an email.

More than 300,000 miles of natural gas pipelines exist in the U.S., she noted in a lengthy statement. “None of these existing pipelines have undergone the extensive level of environmental research, analysis and review that has been performed on the MVP project.”

The reforms to the federal energy permitting process outlined in the summary document, which would include timelines for permitting reviews and a statute of limitations for court challenges, leave Virginia environmental groups in a tight spot. Organizations that last week hailed the sudden reappearance of federal climate action are now left scrambling to decide whether they can swallow a deal that includes Mountain Valley Pipeline, a project many have spent years opposing.

“We’re not going to sit by and roll over and let Southwest Virginia be a sacrifice zone,” Williams told the Mercury Tuesday after leading a demonstration in downtown Richmond calling on Biden to declare a climate emergency, one of many organized by activists nationwide. “But we don’t want to blow up the deal. It’s a fine line.”

We don’t want to blow up the deal. It’s a fine line. Some groups have already come out in opposition.

“We firmly oppose any approach by Congress that sacrifices frontline communities as part of a political bargain,” said Jessica Sims, Virginia field coordinator for environmental and economic development nonprofit Appalachian Voices, in a statement. The group’s North Carolina field coordinator, Ridge Graham, called any legislation requiring completion of Mountain Valley “unacceptable.”

But others were reluctant to speak on the record, indicating they are still sorting out their stances in a rapidly evolving situation.

Regardless of the Manchin deal, Kaine on Tuesday emphasized the need for reforms to federal pipeline permitting, saying he thought FERC’s initial review of Mountain Valley had been “shoddy.” Also, “I view many of the controversies that are connected with the Mountain Valley Pipeline as having been sort of stoked by an inadequate federal permitting process through FERC,” he said, citing “in particular the unwillingness or inability of FERC to get information out to the public and appropriately take public comment and then take that into account in terms of deciding (a) whether a pipeline was necessary and (b) whether the proposed route was the right route.”

A spokesperson later said that Sen. Kaine believes improving permitting “is preferable to having members of Congress decide outcomes on individual energy infrastructure projects.”

Both Kaine and Warner, as well as Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, have previously proposed federal legislation to change the federal review process for proposals and clarify when eminent domain can be exercised. Those bills were crafted in response to not only Mountain Valley Pipeline but the Dominion Energy and Duke Energy-backed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would have stretched from West Virginia to North Carolina via Virginia but was canceled in July 2020.

Floating solar panels now in use

From an Article by Gabrielle See, CNBC Cable News, May 18, 2022

ARTICLE PHOTO ~ Power workers inspect photovoltaic power generation facilities at a 35 MW “fish-light complementary” photovoltaic power station in Binhai New Area, Haian City, East China’s Jiangsu Province, on March 15, 2022.

Record-high coal and gas prices have been pushing prices higher for consumers and businesses alike, but there could be a silver lining. According to the findings of climate analytics firm TransitionZero, it is now cheaper to switch from coal to clean energy, compared to switching from coal to gas — thanks to the falling cost of renewables and battery storage, coupled with the rising volatility of gas prices.

“The carbon price needed to incentivize the switch from coal generation to renewable energy for storage has dipped to a negative price,” said Jacqueline Tao, an analyst at TransitionZero. “So essentially that means that you can actually switch to renewables at a cost saving,” she told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” on Wednesday.

The report claims that the global average cost of switching from coal to renewable energy has plunged by 99% since 2010, compared to switching from coal to gas.

Using its Coal to Clean Carbon Price Index — or C3PI project — the company measured the carbon price level it takes to motivate 25 countries to switch fuels, from existing coal to renewables such as new onshore wind or solar photovoltaics plus battery.

Their findings show that the carbon price required to incentivize the coal-to-clean energy switch has plummeted to -$62 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted on average in 2022. That’s compared to $235/tCO2 to incentive them to switch from coal to gas.

This challenges the place of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to transition from coal to clean energy like wind, solar and other renewables. Traditionally, gas has been considered a bridge from coal to renewables because burning gas has a lower carbon intensity than burning coal.

The coal-to-clean carbon price varies across regions, and the picture isn’t “as rosy” in Asia compared to the European Union due to differences in market structure and fuel price mechanisms, Tao said.

Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam still face a relatively high cost of transitioning directly to renewables from coal. According to Tao, these countries have traditionally lagged in the renewable energy transition due to fossil fuel subsidies for domestic producers of coal and gas.

Hedging against climate risks

But beyond cost savings, renewable energy also helps “enhance energy security concerns,” Tao said.

Investing in renewables provides a hedge against climate change risks, she told CNBC. “Banks are increasingly finding it risky to lend to these fossil fuel assets in the concern that they will become stranded assets in the near term down the road due to the global energy transition,” she explained.

“That’s going to mean that there’s going to be limited upstream supply that’s going to come online, and we are going to see increasingly tight gas markets and fossil fuel markets in general that will be prone to demand and supply shocks.”

On the other hand, fossil fuel infrastructures could face physical risks as a result of climate change and extreme-weather events, she added. “We think that investing in renewable energy now would provide a hedge.”

########++++++++########++++++++########

NOTE ~ Waiting for Godot | Summary, Characters, & Facts | Britannica

“Waiting for Godot” is a tragicomedy in two acts by Irish writer Samuel Beckett that was published in 1952 in French as “En attendant Godotand” first produced in 1953. “Waiting for Godot” was a true innovation in drama and the Theatre of the Absurd’s first theatrical success.

Young people seeking to reduce climate change effects

From an Article by Julia Conley, Common Dreams, May 16, 2022

After being sentenced to four to six months in a county jail and thousands of dollars in fines for participating in a coal train blockade in New Hampshire more than two years ago, four climate campaigners say they will be “undeterred by these sentences” and will continue to fight the use of fossil fuels by powerful profit-driven corporations.

The activists are members of the grassroots No Coal, No Gas campaign in New England, which organized a blockade of a train that was shipping 10,000 tons of coal to Merrimack Station power plant in Bow, New Hampshire in December 2019.

Convicted of criminal trespass and railroad trespass, Dana Dwinell-Yardley and Daniel Flynn were sentenced Friday to four months in a county jail while Johnny Sanchez and Jonathan O’Hara were sentenced to six months. They were also ordered to pay more than $6,200 to PanAm Railways in restitution and fines totaling $5,580.

The campaign halted the train at three different locations, delaying the shipment by several hours. Prosecutors focused largely on the fact that the No Coal, No Gas campaign is part of a larger climate justice movement, while Judge Andrew Schulman of the Merrimack County Superior Court did not allow the defense to present evidence explaining the campaign and the history and efficacy of other social movements.

“These defendants are part of a movement,” said defense attorney Logan Perkins at the sentencing, which followed a three-day jury trial in March. “[That fact] is significant and we would have welcomed the opportunity to tell you more about the significance of that in a competing harms hearing, or in a competing harms defense presentation in which we would have been permitted to discuss how the science of social change has clearly identified the power of nonviolent social movements to effect change where all other approaches fail. We asked permission to share this and were denied.” Also, “If a self-proclaimed sympathetic judge can’t look beyond the status quo and the absolute protection of the industries that are actively endangering all of our futures, then we are in dire straits.”

During the trial in March, Perkins and the judge disagreed over the relevance of other social movements including the fight for civil and voting rights from Black Americans, with Schulman claiming that nonviolent action like the train blockade was not warranted as a response to the climate emergency and the continued use of coal at Merrimack Station—the last coal-fired power plant in New England.

Jonathan O’Hara has said that he and his co-defendants and supporters would be undeterred by Schulman’s decision. “It’s this fortitude and grounding in a sense of justice and rightness that will power us to continue to do what must be done,” he said.

O’Hara says he was not surprised by the judge’s sentence, which he called “absolutely clarifying about the state of climate action in the country.” Also, “I came here today hoping for justice, but not expecting justice, and I got what I expected,” said O’Hara. “If a self-proclaimed sympathetic judge can’t look beyond the status quo and the absolute protection of the industries that are actively endangering all of our futures, then we are in dire straits.”

The defendants spoke at the sentencing about the effects Merrimack Station has on its community. Noting that in one hour of burning coal, Merrimack Station emits as much carbon as the average American does in 26 years, Sanchez asked the judge, “Does justice look like allowing coal to still be burned in New England when we know the consequences? When we know that it contributes to higher rates of lung disease? Cardiac disease? To cancer? When we know it contributes to rapidly increasing global temperatures? To food insecurity? To fires?” Also, “That is why, back in December of 2019, I believed, as I do right now, that every second that we stopped those trains from delivering thousands of tons of harmful and unnecessary coal was my moral obligation,” he said.

Rev. Kendra Ford, a Unitarian Universalist minister and member of No Coal, No Gas, said the sentence reflects how “our legal system doesn’t seem to be able to respond to current circumstances.” Also, “The urgency of climate collapse is terrifying, and yet the court’s decisions today is focused on protecting profits for companies in the fossil fuel industry,” Ford said. “The judge seemed more concerned that these non-violent activists disrupted profits than the fact that the continued use of coal is causing irreparable harm to the planet.”

The public health is also under threat by these and many others

>>> Article by Randi Pokladnik, PhD Environmental Scientist, Tappan Lake, OH, May 7, 2022

Twenty years ago, I lost my mother to cancer. She died two months before her 70th birthday. Her cancer had already progressed to stage 3 by the time of her diagnosis so the outlook for a long-term survival was not good.

At first it was hard to believe that she was sick. She looked perfectly healthy but her oncologist informed us that cancer cells had been slowly growing inside her body for many years. Unlike other cells in our body which have specific functions, cancer cells are undifferentiated, meaning they have no function other than to grow.

Our family wanted to know what caused my mom’s cancer. Her lifestyle wasn’t one that might have led to the development of cancer. Her oncologist told us that “unfortunately these tumors do not come with labels,” however, he pointed out that my mom, like many of his other patients, was born and raised in the heavily industrialized Ohio River Valley.There were few regulations in place in the 1930s and 1940s to protect human health and the environment.

The National Institute of Health Sciences reports that more than two-thirds of cancer is from environmental exposures to substances including pesticides, solvents, heavy metals, benzene, dioxins, and vinyl chlorides.

My folks moved from Steubenville, Ohio (a city once noted as having the dirtiest air in the nation) to Toronto, Ohio in 1962. In 1970, Weirton Steel began construction of their coke ovens on Brown’s Island just outside Toronto’s city limits. Coke ovens heat coal to high temperatures to remove sticky coal tars. These tarry substances are collected and used to make various aromatic solvents like benzene, which are carcinogenic. The remaining light weight coke is used during the steel-making process.

The coke plant drew national attention in late 1972 when 21 workers were killed in an explosion at the construction site. Our home, which was located less than a mile away, was rocked by the explosion. For nearly a decade we lived in the shadow of the dangerous aromatic hydrocarbon emissions spewed from the ovens. By 1982, locally produced coke became too expensive and the plant was shut down. However, the pollution in the form of coal tars and benzene containing compounds remained in the local soils and ground water.

Like many people who are diagnosed with terminal cancer, my mom was willing to try anything to gain a few more months of life. But once the cancer spread to her major organs, she had to admit she wasn’t going to beat the cancer. She would not see her grandkids grow up or see another birthday, she wouldn’t grow old, she wouldn’t celebrate another Mother’s Day with us. Cancer had essentially canceled my mom’s life. She lost her hair, her life savings, her dignity and eventually her life.

We will never know for sure if living in the Ohio Valley had contributed to my mom’s cancer but our next-door neighbor died at the age of 14 from leukemia and another friend died at the age of 11 from stomach cancer.

For years the petrochemical industry has discounted the connection of environmental toxins to cancer and they continue to deny the major role they play in the climate crisis. Many consumers are unaware of the risks associated with these toxic products, which include many personal care products, cleaning products, and lawn and garden chemicals. Industry and government agencies do minimal testing for health effects and provide little information to the public.

Countess studies now show that forever chemicals known as polyfluoroalkyl substances, “PFAS”, are now basically found everywhere on the planet: in food packaging and fast-food wrappers, in water, in fish, and in municipal waste biosolids. These compounds have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and numerous other diseases.

Environmental Lawyer, Rob Bilott (of “Dark Waters” fame), said in a recent interview, “one of the things we found in the internal files of the main manufacturer of the chemical PFOS was that this company was well aware by the 1970s that PFOS was being found in the general US population’s blood and was being found at fairly significant levels.” Yet the manufacturers failed to share this information with citizens.

“In July 2021, a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility presented evidence that oil and gas companies have been using PFAS, or substances that can degrade into PFAS, in hydraulic fracturing, a technique used to extract natural gas or oil.” Ignoring the toxicityassociated with fracking fluids and claiming a need for “energy independence”, local, state and federal politicians are calling for more fracking.

Corporate CEOs and cancer cells have this characteristic in common; their main goal is growth. The collateral damage of that growth is of no concern to them so long as their stock values climb. Scientists frantically warn us we are devastating fragile ecosystems and warming the planet to dangerous temperatures. Still CEOs, media, and politicians ignore the warnings.

Many people, including scientists, have become as desperate as cancer patients; searching for an answer, a cure, some way to stop the death of our planet. It was devastating to watch my mother slip away bit by bit until she was barely recognizable. It’s also devastating to watch the only habitable planet in our solar system, the one that harbors so many marvelous creatures and ecosystems, being killed by corporate greed and a dysfunctional economic system that requires the consumption of Mother Earth to make a buck.

Coke from Coal used for Steel from Iron

From an Article by Warren Scott, Wheeling Intelligencer, February 12, 2022

PHOTO in ARTICLE ~ Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. officials announced Friday the Mountain State Carbon coke plant in Follansbee soon will close permanently.

FOLLANSBEE — Citing a shift in the materials used to produce steel, officials with Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. have announced they will be permanently closing the Mountain State Carbon coke plant in the second business quarter. The plant located in Follansbee employs 288.

Pat Persico, spokesperson for the company, said the move was spurred by the firm’s shift to the use of scrap metal hot briquetted iron in making steel, which produces lower carbon dioxide emissions. Last year the company announced plans to reduce emissions by 20% by 2030.

Persico said, “Fortunately, we anticipate that all impacted employees will have job opportunities at our other nearby facilities.” “We have been recruiting at all of our facilities. Depending on where they want to be, we have many opportunities,” she said. Actually, 12 hourly and three salaried employees will remain at the plant for a time to ensure its closing complies with environmental regulations.

Follansbee City Manager Jack McIntosh, who was called for comment, said, “I feel bad for the families who will be affected.” He said though it appears other jobs will be available to them, they will need to move with their families to fill them, and he is sorry to see residents leaving the city. McIntosh said the absence of a major business such as the coke plant also will impact the city’s budget.

While the plant relied on its own wastewater treatment system, it was one of the city’s largest water users, he said. McIntosh added the plant and the various vendors that supplied it also paid a lot of business and occupation tax to the city. “That affects us all,” he said.

The city manager said while he’s working to estimate the loss, he can say, “there will be budget cuts. We definitely will need to make some.” Staff at Mountain State Carbon and various vendors and contractors working there also have delivered thousands of pounds of food as well as monetary donations to the Follansbee R.E.A.C.H. Program, a local food pantry.

The nation’s largest producer of flat rolled steel and iron ore pellets, Cleveland-Cliffs reported record annual revenue of $20.4 billion and record annual net income of $3 billion for 2021. Cleveland-Cliffs acquired the coke plant and other AK Steel owned facilities in 2020. Over the years, the plant has been owned by Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, R.G. Steel and Severstal North America.

Established in 1917, the plant was a major supplier of steel for the then-emerging auto industry, as well as the military during World War I. Workers at the plant are members of United Steelworkers Local 9545. They had signed a three-year agreement with the plant’s former owner, AK Steel, that is scheduled to expire at the end of April.

Foxes here and there are inclined that way ...

From an Article by Joselyn King, Wheeling Intelligencer, August 7, 2021

WHEELING — West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice defended his appointment of retired West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney to the State Public Service Commission.

The commission’s mission is to “ensure fair and prompt regulation of public utilities; to provide for adequate, economical and reliable utility services throughout the state; and to appraise and balance the interests of current and future utility service customers with the general interest of the state’s economy and the interests of the utilities,” according to its website.

Justice termed Raney “a great man” and a great choice to be on the commission. “Bill has served this state in every way,” he said. “He worked hand and hand and led the charge with the Coal Association for years and years.

He will absolutely be sworn in in the coming weeks, and I know he will do a tremendous job. “He loves our state beyond good sense — just like I do. I think the world of him. He is so qualified and so well-versed it’s unbelievable.”

Justice was asked if his selection of Raney to join the PSC means the commission is being tilted toward coal producers. “I don’t want us to walk away from coal producers,” he said. “We are an energy producing state, and we should be proud of it. Bill Raney will do a great job in any way I can imagine.”

Raney will assume the seat vacated by former State Sen. Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha. Brooks’ term expired June 30. He will join Charlotte Lane and Renee Larrick on the commission.

Justice commended the sitting commissioners for their decision this week to approve a certificate of convenience and necessity requested by Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power for the Mitchell Power Plant, the John Amos Power Plant in Putnam County, and the Mountaineer Power Plant in Mason County.

The move is expected to permit the power plants to continue operating until 2040.

“I think it’s the right decision,” Justice said. “We can’t afford to risk our base load generation capacities. We must do everything we can to protect these plants and protect those jobs. … We want to embrace renewables. We want to embrace the clean air efforts, but we’re not ready. Hopefully, we’ll be ready someday. But right now we’re not ready.

“If anybody thinks we can move to renewables and we don’t need coal, we don’t need gas, we don’t need oil … that’s a frivolous, silly thought. It is absolutely wrong. In the meantime we’re going to lose jobs on an experiment that’s going to turn around and bite every last one of us in the butt.”

Justice said he knows, if plans for renewables would fail, people soon would be standing on street corners with signs reading “drill, baby, drill.”

######++++++++######++++++++######

West Virginia Air Quality Board, WV-DEP Web-Site, April 3, 2022

The West Virginia Air Quality Board is a quasi-judicial Board of review responsible for hearing appeals regarding the issuance or denial of permits, permit conditions, or enforcement decisions rendered by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality. The Board is composed of seven members, five of whom are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and two ex-officio members who are Commissioners of the Bureau for Public Health and the Department of Agriculture.

1. J. Michael Koon, Chair – Public at Large Representative, Appointed: October 1, 1993. Retired Dean, West Virginia Northern Community College, Weirton Campus, and Vice President of Economic and Workforce Development. M.S., Biology – Environmental Studies, West Virginia University, 1977; B.A., Biology, West Virginia University, 1973.

2. R. Thomas Hansen, Ph.D., Vice-Chair – Industry Representative, Appointed: November 17, 1997. Employed by Boyd Oil & Gas, Inc. Attended Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 1976 – 1977, Postdoctoral, Yale University, New Haven, CT 1971 – 1976, Doctorate, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 1967 – 1969, B.S. Chemistry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 1965 – 1967.

3. Robert C. Orndorff, Jr., Member – Industry Representative, Appointed: November 4, 2009. Managing Director, W. Va. and Exploration & Production, Local Affairs, for Dominion Energy; Master’s degree, Indiana University; Bachelor’s degree, Millersville University of Pennsylvania. Board member for the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Vice Chair of Chamber Energy Committee, Board member of West Virginia Education Alliance, and Board member and past president of West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association.

4. Vacant, Member. 5. Vacant, Member.

SCOTUS heard this GHG case 2/28/22

From PRX at the University of Massachusetts, Boston this is Living on Earth.

CURWOOD: I’m Steve Curwood. Congress has yet to enact comprehensive climate legislation, so if the Biden administration wants to set America on track for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 it will have to rely on executive orders and regulations. According to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2007 CO2 is an air pollutant that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate. But so far EPA efforts to actually curb the large amounts of global warming gases from power plants have gotten snarled in litigation. And just the other day a more conservative Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could tie the hands of the EPA, even though those rules don’t even exist. Joining me now to discuss is Pat Parenteau, Professor at the Vermont Law School and former EPA Regional Counsel. Welcome back to Living on Earth, Pat!
>>> PARENTEAU: Thanks, Steve, good to be with you.

CURWOOD: So, Pat, I’m confused. Conservatives have said for a long time that judges shouldn’t be activists. But to what extent is this so-called conservative Supreme Court changing along those lines?
>>> PARENTEAU: Oh, right. I mean, they’re reaching out for cases that in the past, the Supreme Court would never take. The big case on the calendar of the Supreme Court this year, the West Virginia versus EPA case involving regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants, for example, there is no rule on the books right now regulating these emissions. So the Supreme Court has taken review of an abstract question of what is EPA’s authority to regulate these plants before the Biden administration has even adopted a rule! It’s the very definition of an activist court.

CURWOOD: So West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency, has been called by some as the biggest climate change case in a decade. What makes it such a big deal?
>>> PARENTEAU: Well, it certainly is since Massachusetts v. EPA. This decision, could you know, not only limit EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. But one of the doctrines is something called the major question doctrine. It’s a rule that the court and the conservative members would view as kind of a new assertion of authority that an agency hasn’t previously used under a provision of a law like the Clean Air Act, that’s been on the books since 1970. But it’s never been used for anything as big as climate, of course, because we weren’t thinking about climate change in 1970, we should have been, but we weren’t. And this doctrine is so malleable, that you know, you can apply it to any environmental rule. I mean, most environmental rules, because they’re addressing big problems — air quality, water quality, loss of wetlands, loss of endangered species — they’re dealing with really big problems that do have large economic and social consequences. Some of those consequences are negative from the standpoint of if we don’t deal with the problems they’re gonna create, you know, economic harm, and other kinds of harm. And if we do deal with them, it’s going to cost money to deal with them. But if we don’t deal with them sooner rather than later, the cost could be much greater, and so on. The problem is when the court applies the major question doctrine, guess what? The result is almost every single time, in fact, all the cases that I’m aware of is the agency regulation is struck down. It’s a deregulatory doctrine. It’s used when the court believes the agency has exceeded its authority, and is gonna strike down the rule and require that Congress explicitly authorize the specific action that the agencies want to take. And that’s just a recipe for disaster, frankly, for environmental law. We have to be much more adaptive than that.

CURWOOD: This case that we’re talking about is called West Virginia v. the EPA. What’s the backstory of this case, and explain in some detail the EPA regulation that it’s talking about.
>>> PARENTEAU: After the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, EPA under the Obama administration adopted rules to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act. And the plan that EPA came up with was a very flexible, sort of menu of options. Option one was make these plants run more efficiently and burn less coal or less gas. The second step of the Obama plan was use your ability to use more reliance on, on gas and certainly more reliance on wind and solar, use the flexibility the grid gives you to rely more on cleaner sources of energy. And then number three, put more investment in new renewable sources of energy and gradually bring more green energy onto the grid over time. That’s the Clean Power Plan. Now, that plan never took effect. The Supreme Court stayed it, even before the lower courts had ruled on whether it was lawful or not. And the Supreme Court in a unprecedented action, another activist step by the five conservatives that were on the court at that time, when Justice Scalia was there — this was his last vote before he passed away shortly thereafter. So the Clean Power Plan never took effect.

The Trump rule came on, they repealed the Obama plan. They replaced it with something called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) plan, which wouldn’t have done very much at all to reduce emissions. The estimate was maybe it would reduce it by 1%. And it would rely strictly on efficiency measures, none of these other strategies of relying more on gas or bringing more green energy on, onto the grid. And not even allowing trading, emissions trading, the cap and trade approach. That ACE rule was struck down by the DC Circuit. And that decision by the DC Circuit is technically the one that has is now being, quote, “reviewed” by the Supreme Court. But the important point here is, there is no rule on the books. The ACE rule is not on the books. The Obama Clean Power Plan is not on the books. There’s no rule today, nobody’s required to do anything right now. And yet, the Supreme Court has said, we’re gonna to review whether the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to do all of the things that it might like to do to find ways to reduce these emissions in the most cost effective way possible.

CURWOOD: So I’m scratching my head about another thing involving this case, Pat, and that is that many constituents of the electric power industry have supported this approach. So why did West Virginia sue on this rule that doesn’t actually exist? And why did the high court take it up?
>>> PARENTEAU: I have to say, West Virginia has led the charge from day one against EPA’s authority. I mean, West Virginia, was even arguing EPA had no authority whatsoever to regulate emissions from coal fired power plants. And obviously, West Virginia is a major coal state, you get that. But it’s frankly more ideological than that. All of the challengers to the Clean Power Plan, and that have appealed to the Supreme Court, they all resent EPA giving them directions on how to transition the energy source. They’re not taking any actions on their own. They could be doing that, but they’re not. But they’re also not supporting what EPA is trying to do. So there’s no other way to describe this than that. It is a political fight. And it’s about states versus EPA, and who’s in charge, and so forth. And it’s not rational.

CURWOOD: So Pat, how do you read the justices? How do you think this is going to be decided based on what you heard during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court the other day?
>>> PARENTEAU: So it was a very active bench. The argument went well over the time that was allotted, almost all the justices participated. And the government, through the Solicitor General, made a very strong argument that the court really didn’t have jurisdiction over the case at all, partly because there’s no rule on the books to review. But even more importantly, because there was no injury to the petitioners: the states and some of the coal industry that were co-petitioners. And that’s because there’s no rule on the books, nobody has to do anything at this point. What they’re arguing, the petitioners, is, well, we can’t trust the Biden administration when they say they’re not going to revive the Clean Power Plan. They might. They just might do that. So because they might do that the case should stay alive. That’s a really weak, pitiful, frankly, argument. I mean, an environmental group making an argument like that would be tossed out on their ear. But this court, my first prediction is, they’re not going to dismiss the case. They’re not going to stay their hand the way they should and wait for EPA’s rule. They’re going to issue a decision. What’s the decision going to be? There’s several possibilities. For sure, I think, they’re going to say a lot of bad things about the Clean Power Plan. Justice Kavanaugh, when he was on the DC Circuit, heard arguments challenging the Clean Power Plan, and he showed his cards very clearly. He would use the major question doctrine to strike down the Clean Power Plan if in fact it was presented to the court. So we can be sure the court is going to be very negative about EPA’s authority to require shift to renewable energy, wind or solar or anything else. The real question for me is, are they going to buy into this argument that EPA can only regulate inside the fence line? What it means is, you can only regulate at individual sources. I’m not sure what the court’s going to do on that. Kavanaugh, you know, was asking a lot of hard questions about whether that made sense. The government, the Solicitor General, who was terrific, she pointed to the fact that the Clean Power Plan, not only was it never in effect, the goals of the Clean Power Plan have already been exceeded. The industry itself, because of the major transformations underway in the energy sector, have already exceeded the 30% reduction in emissions that the Clean Power Plan had established. So, you know, she made an incredibly powerful argument, I heard, that this major question doctrine, which a lot of us are really concerned about, really doesn’t apply here. She just might be able to get Justice Roberts, maybe Justice Barrett, even, and who knows, maybe even Justice Kavanaugh, at least to agree that the major question doctrine doesn’t oust EPA of authority to shape a rule. Maybe a rule that doesn’t require transition to renewable energy, but maybe a rule that at least allows things like emissions trading and averaging, which would still accomplish a lot of reduction.

CURWOOD: Pat Parenteau is a Professor of Environmental Law at the Vermont Law School and former EPA Regional Council. Pat, thanks so much today for our discussion.

xxx#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

See Also: The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Efforts to Protect the Environment Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker Magazine, January 10, 2022

The potential ramifications of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency are profound. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving an Obama-era power-plant rule that’s no longer in effect, and never really was. The Court has agreed to hear so many high-profile cases this term, on subjects ranging from abortion to gun rights to vaccine mandates, that this one — West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency — has received relatively little attention beyond legal circles. But its potential ramifications are profound. At a minimum, the Court’s ruling on the case is likely to make it difficult for the Biden Administration to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. The ruling could also go much further and hobble the Administration’s efforts to protect the environment and public health.

West Virginia v. E.P.A. “could well become one of the most significant environmental law cases of all time,” Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University and a prominent conservative commentator, wrote on the legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy. Or, as Ian Millhiser put it, for Vox, “West Virginia is a monster of a case.”