U. S. Forest Service: Trees are the answer

From an Article by Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch.com, May 3, 2019

The U.S. House of Representatives approved its first major climate change legislation in a decade on Thursday, Reuters reported. The Climate Action Now Act would require President Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris agreement, mandating that he outlines steps to reduce greenhouse emissions and prohibiting him from using federal funds to withdraw from the agreement.

The bill passed 231 to 190, with three Republicans crossing the aisle to approve it with the Democrats. It is unlikely to pass the Senate, but the Democrats see it as a way to stake out a climate position ahead of the 2020 election and to signal to the international community that a future Democratic president would stay in the agreement, The Washington Post reported.

“Passing this bill is an important signal to our allies, and my expectation is that when we act, we’ll see increased ambition from them, too,” Democratic Florida Representative Kathy Castor, who sponsored the legislation and chairs the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, told the press before the vote, as The Washington Post reported.

While Trump promised to withdraw from the Paris accord in June 2017, he cannot legally do so until November 2020. “That’s an interesting date, isn’t it?” Castor said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill would “go nowhere” in the Senate and called it a “futile gesture to handcuff the U.S. economy,” The New York Times reported.

The Obama administration had promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025; China promised to slow its emissions growth and reach peak carbon in 2030, and India said it would reduce the carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product while still allowing overall emissions to rise.

“Environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive,” Florida Republican Representative Vern Buchanan, one of three Republicans who voted for the act, said, as The Washington Post reported.

Some green groups applauded Thursday’s vote. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune called the bill “an important opportunity for every member of Congress to affirm on the record that the U.S. must be a leader in addressing the climate crisis.” Others argued that it did not go far enough.

“The latest science is clear: In order to adequately address deepening climate chaos, we must transition completely to clean, renewable energy generation in little more than a decade,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said ahead of the vote. “The terms of the Paris accord aren’t low-hanging fruit, they’re fruit that has fallen to the ground and begun to rot.”

Scientists have said that if all the world’s countries met their pledges under the Paris agreement, it would not be enough to prevent a dangerous rise in temperature.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has championed a more ambitious Green New Deal that would transition the U.S. to net zero emissions within 10 years, said Thursday’s act needed to be the precursor to more legislation. “The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” she said.

Actually, 2009 was the last year that the House passed major climate change legislation, according to The New York Times. That bill would have put a cap on U.S. emissions and let businesses and utilities trade permits to emit, but it failed to advance in the Senate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change, Zahra Hirji, BuzzFeed News Reporter, April 23, 2019

When the US government is doing nothing to stop climate change, do your personal choices even matter? Here’s how climate scientists are — and aren’t — changing their lives.

"Breakfree 2016" @ www.350.org

Four (4) Reasons Why It’s Time to Break Free

From an Article by Annie Leonard, EcoWatch.com, May 11, 2016

With the presidential campaign dominating the news cycle, it’s easy to get distracted from what our current administration is doing—and not doing—to tackle climate change. We can’t afford to wait and see what the election brings. That’s why communities from the Gulf South to Alaska and around the globe are uniting in an incredible wave of resistance to fossil fuels this week.

Climate activists gathered in Anchorage, Alaska last month to speak out against offshore drilling in the U.S. Arctic. Photo credit: Mark Meyer / Greenpeace

Here’s why taking action matters:

1. Business as usual for the fossil fuel industry cannot continue.

The consequences of our reliance on dirty energy are no secret, but that hasn’t stopped fossil fuel companies from going to extremes to protect their bottom lines.

Exxon, for one, knew the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels 40 years ago. But instead of acting in the interest of humanity, the company campaigned in secret to cover up climate science so it could continue to plunder and pollute in search of more oil to burn.

Not to be outdone, Shell spent three years and $7 billion trying to drill in U.S. Arctic waters, a campaign that ended in a very public, ego-bruising failure in 2015. But the company is still clinging to its Arctic drilling hopes by a thread, relinquishing all but one of its Alaskan leases on Tuesday.

What do these two stories have in common? People power winning out over corporate greed. Thanks to tireless activism, Exxon is finally taking its scandal seriously, deploying the full force of its lawyers and lobbyists. And the movement that pressured Shell to leave the Arctic also prompted President Obama to protect Alaska from offshore drilling through 2017 and make the Atlantic off limits through 2022.

2. The path to a sustainable future does not include fossil fuels.

If we have any hope of preventing runaway climate change, we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground—starting now.

A 2015 study in the journal Nature revealed that we need to leave at least 80 percent of the world’s known remaining fossil fuel reserves untouched, including more than 90 percent of U.S. coal reserves and a whopping 100 percent of Arctic oil and gas.

In the U.S. alone, keeping publicly owned fossil fuels in the ground would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 100 million metric tons per year.

Of course, communities on the frontlines of the fight against fossil fuels have known this for years, but policymakers are just starting to catch up.

3. Actions speak louder than words.

If last year’s Paris climate talks showed us anything, it’s that the world’s political leaders are ready to talk the talk on climate action.

But are they ready to walk the walk? So far, the answer is no.

President Obama, for example, said last year, “As long as I am president, America will lead the world to meet this threat [climate change] before it’s too late.”

But his actions aren’t on pace with the change we need. He’s failed to protect the U.S. Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico from offshore drilling and his Interior Department Secretary Sally Jewell called the keep it in the ground movement “naive” in a recent speech.

If you think it’s “naive” to preach climate action one minute then turn around and sell our public land to the highest bidder the next, then it’s time to speak up!

4. Momentum for a clean energy revolution is on our side.

Breaking free from fossil fuels won’t happen overnight, but we’re far beyond square one. People power has already stopped major projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and forced Shell to abandon immediate Arctic drilling plans.

And we didn’t stop there.

This series of wins is no accident—it’s because people like you and me are uniting around one clear message. We only have one choice to protect our future: keep fossil fuels in the ground.

From financial stress to increased pressure from people like you, the fossil fuel industry is reeling. Right now is our best chance to turn up the heat and make 2016 a tipping point in the journey towards a clean, just, renewable energy future.

Communities all over the country—from Alaska to the Gulf South—have already pushed us closer and closer to this tipping point. Now it’s time to build on their actions and break free from fossil fuels for good.

Sound like a movement you want to be a part of?

Find a Break Free action near you and get involved.

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net

Center for Environmental Health

Increasing dangers exist from toxic chemicals in our world

From an Article by Nicole D’ Allesandro, EcoWatch.com, May 23, 2014

There are 84,000 chemicals in commerce. How can you keep your family safe in light of so many potentially toxic exposures?

The truth is, we all have chemicals in our bodies and our bloodstreams. “What’s happening is that there’s an experiment going on, on all of us right now. There’s a big, planned, but uncontrolled science experiment,” says Michael Green, executive director at Center for Environmental Health (CEH).

Green founded CEH in 1996 with the belief that chemical makers do not have a right to expose people to concoctions that affect our health. CEH has been instrumental in national efforts to halt toxic exposures and to protect public health, including the landmark law that eliminated lead from children’s products in the U.S. (after literally testing every child’s product in the U.S. for the element). The organization has also forced manufacturers to remove toxins from products used daily by families, such as water filters, children’s medicines, purses, rash cream and candy.

The Green Divas talk with Green about his experiences working with government, businesses and communities to keep us all safe from toxic chemicals where we work, play and live. Green discusses what BPA-free really means; explains why companies make a conscious choice to not know the health impacts of the chemicals they use; offers tips on how to avoid BPA (and its nasty cousins); and more.

Green, who recounts his own daily battles with his toddler over which (safe or unsafe) sippy cup she would use, firmly believes everyone should be able to protect their kids. “Your family’s health should be in your hands alone.”

Thanks to Green and CEH for protecting public health, holding companies responsible for their actions and products, and collaborating with the good role models out there who demonstrate how to do it right in the private sector.

EcoWatch, July 13, 2012

National Casualty, an insurance company that operates under the umbrella of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., has officially become the first major insurer to announce that it won’t cover damages related to fracking operations.

According to a statement released by the company, “From an underwriting standpoint, we do not have a comfort level with the unique risks associated with the fracking process to provide coverage at a reasonable price.”

This is a major step forward for the countless Americans who are opposed to the fracking process, and to those whose health, property and livelihoods have been directly affected by contaminated drinking water and polluted air.

This could also be a major step forward in the exhausting process of getting political leaders to recognize its dangers and implement legislation to protect the public. The timing could serve New Yorkers well as Gov. Andrew Cuomo is set to make a decision soon that will determine whether or not fracking operations will be allowed to move forward in select counties.

Nationwide, an Ohio-based company, has also hopefully sent a clear message to Ohio legislators—most importantly Gov. John Kasich—who continue to accommodate the oil and gas industry at the expense of the public.

“When a company with the scope of Nationwide Insurance determines that property with fracking is too risky and too dangerous to insure, political leaders considering the practice would be wise to take heed,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “What countless families, farmers and small business owners across the nation have already figured out—that fracking just can’t be done safely—national corporations with a stake in our land are now realizing as well. Nationwide isn’t willing to risk its bottom line over fracking, and our elected leaders shouldn’t be willing to risk the health and safety of those they serve.”

According to the Associated Press, the Nationwide policy came to light when an internal memo detailing underwriting guidelines was posted on websites of upstate New York anti-fracking groups and landowner coalitions seeking gas leases. Nancy Smeltzer, a spokeswoman for Nationwide, confirmed that the memo was genuine but said it wasn’t intended for public dissemination.

The memo states: “After months of research and discussion, we have determined that the exposures presented by hydraulic fracturing are too great to ignore. Risks involved with hydraulic fracturing are now prohibited for General Liability, Commercial Auto, Motor Truck Cargo, Auto Physical Damage and Public Auto (insurance) coverage.”

It also states that “prohibited risks” apply to landowners who lease land for shale gas drilling and contractors involved in fracking operations, including those who haul water to and from drill sites; pipe and lumber haulers; and operators of bulldozers, dump trucks and other vehicles used in drill site preparation, according to the Associated Press.

In response to the leaked document, Nationwide issued this response:

Nationwide has not changed our policies or guidelines. Fracking related losses have never been a covered loss under a personal or commercial lines policy.

Nationwide’s personal and commercial lines insurance policies were not designed to provide coverage for any fracking-related risks. However, Nationwide will investigate all claims submitted by our customers that they believe are the result of damage from fracking. Every Nationwide claim is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Insurance works when a carrier can accurately price the coverage to match the risks. When information and claims experience are not available to fully understand the scope of a given risk, carriers aren’t able to price protection that would be fair to both the customer and the company. From an underwriting standpoint, we do not have a comfort level with the unique risks associated with the fracking process to provide coverage at a reasonable price.

Insurance is a contract and it is designed to cover certain risks. Risks like flooding and mining or drilling are not part of our contracts, and the customer should seek out an insurer that handles these customized types of insurance.

Joe Case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

If Nationwide doesn’t feel comfortable with the risks of fracking operations, political leaders should take note: It’s not good business, it’s not in the interest of public health and it’s not wanted.

You can make your voice heard on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. this July 28 at the nation’s largest-ever anti-fracking rally, labeled “Stop the Frack Attack.”

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.