Existing Pinnacle Wind Farm in Mineral County, West Virginia

From an Article by Michelle Lewis, Electrek Communications, January 26, 2021

West Virginia is getting a 115 MW wind farm, which will increase the state’s wind power by 15%. Here’s why that’s a really big deal – and why West Virginia’s governor, Jim Justice, is so excited.

West Virginia wind power — First, let’s check out West Virginia’s new wind farm. Construction is underway on the $200 million Black Rock Wind project. It consists of 23 turbines that produce 5 megawatts each on the Grant-Mineral county line, in the northeastern region of the state. Green energy developer Clearway Energy is building Black Rock Wind, which will provide power to Toyota and American Electric Power.

Clearway, which already operates the Pinnacle Wind Farm (pictured above) in Mineral County, intends to have Black Rock Wind operating before the end of this year.

WVMetroNews reports that Clearway Energy CEO Craig Cornelius says that $52 million of the $200 million will be spent on payroll and services during the construction process.

Construction will create 200 union jobs, and permanent positions will be advertised later this year. Clearway is planning a pilot project training program for workers who have coal mining or other energy experience.

West Virginia’s coal dependency is changing

West Virginia is coal country. According to the US Energy Information Administration, as of 2018, it was the second-largest coal producer in the US after Wyoming and ranked fifth among the states in total US energy production – that’s 5%.

Coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 91% of West Virginia’s electricity net generation in 2019. Renewable energy resources — primarily hydroelectric power and wind energy — contributed a meager 6%, in contrast.

West Virginia depends on the fossil fuel for jobs and revenue – but coal is a lost cause. Maybe that’s why Governor Jim Justice (R-WV) sounds so excited – maybe even a little relieved? – when he announced Black Rock Wind yesterday. Here’s an excerpt of what he said:

Gosh, this is so necessary that we have within our state, and this is really good stuff. Today we’re announcing a great move by Blackrock, a great move in the State of West Virginia, and so many, many, many good things that are about to happen here.

We absolutely do not run off and leave our [fossil fuel] jobs, but at the same time, we absolutely want to embrace all the other ways we can move forward with manufacturing and great jobs.

Pipeline installations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia involve many bends and slopes, some abrupt or steep or rocky

From the Editorial Board, Philadelphia Inquirer, November 18, 2019

The news that the FBI has been investigating how Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration issued a construction permit for a $5.1 billion project to construct a cross-state pipeline carrying highly volatile gas liquids is a grim reminder that when it comes to energy policy, Pennsylvania is moving in the wrong direction.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that for at least six months, the FBI has been investigating whether Wolf administration officials have pressured the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to approve the Sunoco Pipeline LP’s Mariner East 2 project — which traverses 17 counties — despite potential shortcomings in the permitting process. The Wolf administration has made natural gas a staple of its economic development plans and the project has garnered the support of labor unions and the energy industry.

The federal investigation is the latest in the mounting challenges that include a joint investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and Delaware County District Attorney’s Office, as well as an investigation by the Chester County District Attorney’s Office. The Clean Air Council has challenged in court several water and air quality permits that the state issued to Sunoco. Environmental activists and residents near pipeline construction sites have long been protesting the project — an opposition that intensified following gas leaks, spills, and odors.

Last week, the governor said he had nothing to hide and welcomed investigations. Frankly, though, these questions are not the most troubling aspect of the project. As we face a moment of reckoning to address climate change, instead of moving toward renewable energy, Pennsylvania is battling to grow the commonwealth’s dependence on fossil fuel.

The Mariner East Pipelines are not the only examples

A June fire at Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery put the entire region at risk of exposure to deadly gases. As a part of its court bankruptcy proceeding, it is accepting bids for the property; two of the 15 potential bidders propose using the site to produce fuel. Others would repurpose the site as a fuel terminal.

In the western part of the state, the Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex is soon to be completed in part due to billions in tax credits. Instead of rolling back the footprint of the gas industry in an area of the state that is already seeing a cluster of rare childhood cancer — similar to Louisiana’s “cancer alley” next to refineries and petrochemical plants — the state is expanding it.

According to a USA-Today report, Pennsylvania could expect to see 24 new natural gas plants over the next decade, only two fewer than Texas, which leads the nation.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear: The only way to avoid irreversible damage to our planet is through “rapid and far-reaching” transition that would reduce emissions by 45 percent before 2030.

With every new pipeline, refinery, or plant, Pennsylvania is making that transition more difficult. Instead of having the vision to start transforming the Penna. economy away from its dependence on fossil fuels, lawmakers and leaders are myopically chasing economic development in the short term at the expense of the future of our commonwealth — and of the planet.

Ray Kurzweil, well known futurist and inventor

Editorial from the Concord Monitor, Concord, Mass., August 29, 2019

Last week, BNP Paribas, the world’s eighth largest bank, announced that it is ending all investment in fossil fuels.

“We conclude that the economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind and solar-powered EVs (electric vehicles) are now in relentless and irreversible decline, with far-reaching implications for both policymakers and the oil majors,” Paribas said in its announcement.

Is the bank right, and how soon might the transition happen?

Ray Kurzweil, futurist and inventor of the flatbed scanner, the first print-to-speech machine, a musical synthesizer and more, made many predictions, including this one in 2001: “We won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century, it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).”

Technological progress proceeds at an exponential rate as new tools like artificial intelligence create even better tools quickly, Kurzweil said.

The batting average of the former MIT professor, now director of engineering for Google, is good. Trackers say that 115 of the 147 predictions Kurzweil has made since the 1990s have proven to be essentially accurate.

If Kurzweil is even half right, technological change and its impact on the world’s economies, the nature of work, advances in medicine and alternative energy will occur far faster than most people and policymakers realize.

The pace of climate change is also proceeding far faster than scientists expected, and the race between technologies that will slow climate change and the continued or even increased burning of fossil fuels is happening on many fronts.

The fires burning in the Amazon rainforest – the lungs of the planet – are being set largely by farmers and cattle ranchers bent on expansion. The planet is home to nearly 1 billion cows, each of whom makes multiple contributions to climate change daily. Meanwhile alternatives to meat are multiplying, improving and winning consumer favor at a rate that alarms the beef industry.

Word is that Concord’s Burger King restaurants are selling as many plant-based Impossible Whoppers as beef Whoppers.

And a spokesman for German automaker Volkswagen said, earlier this month, that the day when its electric vehicles reach price parity with internal combustion vehicles is only a few years away.

The tipping point that slides gas and diesel vehicles toward history’s trash heap is approaching. Charging stations will replace gas stations.

Reinhard Fischer, head of strategy for Volkswagen in North America, told attendees at the Center for Automotive Research in Detroit this month that range anxiety has now been replaced by charging anxiety.

“A hundred years ago, gasoline was sold at pharmacies,” Fischer said. “Today we have 122,000 gas stations in the United States. It’s transformed from a bottleneck to a commodity. Electric charging is going to be exactly the same.”

When it comes to transportation, to compete with energy from solar and wind power, according to the French bank Paribas’s analysis, “the long-term break-even price for oil for gasoline to remain competitive as a source of mobility is $9 to $10 per barrel and for diesel $17 to $19 per barrel.”

After bouncing around in the $60 range, yesterday’s price for a barrel of crude was $55.68.

The lower the price goes the less it makes sense to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness and other environmentally sensitive places. The faster meat alternatives replace beef the less need for the slash-and-burn agriculture that worsens climate change and threatens the survival of many of the Earth’s species.

Let’s hope Paribas, Volkswagen and Kurzweil are right.

.. WVU College of Law Professor .. James Van Nostrand

From an Article by Chelsi Baker, WVU College of Law, November 12, 2018

MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA — The 2018 National Energy Conference at WVU Law on December 1st will focus on climate change.

Admission is free and the public is invited to attend. Online registration is required at: energy.law.wvu.edu/nec18

Topics to be discussed at the conference include the latest developments in climate change issues, climate change communication, controlling methane emissions, putting a price on carbon, and solar energy opportunities and obstacles. The speakers are national and regional experts from industry, public policy organizations, environmental groups, and academia.

Emily Calandrelli, an Emmy-nominated science TV host, will deliver the keynote speech. She is a correspondent on “Bill Nye Saves the World” on Netflix and an executive producer and host of FOX’s “Xploration Outer Space.” Calandrelli is a 2010 WVU graduate.

Rafe Pomerance, chairman of Arctic 21 and former president of Friends of the Earth, will deliver the conference’s closing remarks.

The 2018 National Energy Conference is hosted by WVU Law’s Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, Friends of Blackwater, and the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation.

According to law professor James Van Nostrand, director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, it is important to have honest communication about climate change to learn about climate science and how to make climate-friendly policy choices.

“Experts agree on the importance of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, and bipartisan efforts have paved the way for financial incentives for climate-friendly technologies,” said Van Nostrand. “But citizens, public agencies, businesses, scientists and community leaders must all play an informed role in addressing climate change to help fully tackle the technical, legal, financial, regulatory and political aspects of the issue.”

Among the conference speakers are Kurt Waltzer of the Clean Air Task Force; Andrew Williams of the Environmental Defense Fund; Kenneth Davis, professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University; Autumn Long of Solar United Neighbors; Amy Hessl, a WVU geographer and paleoclimatologist; Joshua Fershee, a WVU law professor; Jim Probst of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby; and Michael Svoboda, a professor at George Washington University.

- WVU College of Law -

Fracking causes many human impacts

George Ahern’s Op-Ed of August 29 has been the source of many guffaws here in Appalachia, where it is passed around among people far from Naples, Florida. It is written as though there was no negative side on the balance sheet of fracking.

The industry uses technology developed at the Morgantown Energy Center (West Virginia) for the DOE and first tried by George Mitchell with government financial assistance. It is so financially insecure both Bloomberg and the New York Times carried articles about difficulty getting funding for new projects. One of those articles says, “Some of fracking’s biggest skeptics are on Wall Street. They argue that the industry’s financial foundation is unstable: Frackers haven’t proven that they can make money.”

Fracking companies are going broke on a regular basis. Another quote from the same article, “The 60 biggest exploration and production firms are not generating enough cash from their operations to cover their operating and capital expenses. In aggregate, from mid-2012 to mid-2017, they had negative free cash flow of $9 billion per quarter. This article was published in the same month as Dr. Ahern’s. Only five of the top 20 fracking companies made more money than they spent in the first quarter of 2018!

Some of the reasons are quite simple. Fracking expense is tremendous and the wells decline rapidly. Conventional wells produce for decades, fracked wells don’t pay to pump beyond 6 or 7 years, and production has gone down by half in a couple of years. All the production in the first year makes a selling point to investors, and the rest, conveniently, isn’t mentioned. Several times as much water is used as oil produced in oil wells, and several times as much water returns to the surface. Five thousand tanker truckloads of water must be taken from a source and then much of it pumped back underground. This causes earthquakes.

Local Chamber of Commerce people benefit from the investment, and they love it. Rural people hate it when it arrives, and anyone concerned with it’s effect on the biosphere see mostly harm. Energy Retun on Energy Invested (EROEI) is quite poor.

When you look at the anti-fracking resistance you see many small groups working individually, composed of several interests. The first is composed of landowners who consider themselves abused by laws that allow extraction industry to “run over” them. A second consists of people who suffer illness from the chemicals used in fracking and brought up from the deep with “return flow’ from the fracked wells. Still others are environmentalists, afraid of the huge amount of soil disturbance caused by well pads, access roads and the endless network of pipelines and pump stations required to transmit the product. Dr. Ahern’s notion that it is unified is a product of the petroleum industry’s notion that to be effective it must be organized the way they are. Almost all anti-fracking workers are unpaid volunteers, supplying their own funding for travel and research.

Horror stories abound in Appalachia, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma. Frequently surface owners do not own the oil and gas under their property. This is the result of law that allowed surface to be “severed” from minerals, a longstanding practice going back to the early days of oil and gas when lawyers were educated and landowners weren’t. This results in surface owners receiving arbitrary “settlements,” largely dictated by the company. Environmental damage is paid to no one, since the community owns the environment.

Part of the political appeal of fracking is the decline of petroleum reserves in the United States. We exported early and although blessed with reserves, they are gone. After all, the U. S. has only two percent of the dry land of the earth. The remaining conventional reserves lie in Russia and Iran (which “free world” companies want to confine) and the Middle East, with potentially shifting loyalty.

Finally, the piece Ahern wrote ignores the two devastating products of fracking: carbon dioxide and petroleum based plastics. One is ruining the atmosphere and the other the surface of the dry land earth and the sea. The blurb describing Ahern does not give the area of his Ph. D. expertise; perhaps it is not in science. If in Chemistry or Physics, the idea of radiation from the sun exciting carbon dioxide molecules, making sensible heat, what is measured with a thermometer, would not be strange. We all know microwaves make water molecules vibrate faster in a microwave oven. These heating and littering effects simply can’t be ignored by anyone with children or interested in continuing civilization.

An easy calculation shows 7708 tons of carbon dioxide have been added to the atmosphere on every square mile of the earth’s surface since coal was first used on any scale to produce heat and energy; and that we are now adding 203 tons more to each square mile every year. Some of this heat is transferred to the ocean, making it warmer, some goes to melting ice at high altitude and some to melting ice at the poles. This raises the ocean level.

Ahern couldn’t have done better in singing the praise of an industry that is exhausting it’s reserve of capitol and credibility on influencing legislation and enforcement and attracting reluctant investors. The ultimate irony of the article is that it was published in a coastal city in Florida. Rising sea level and intrusion of saltwater will get to it among the first.

Sincerely, S. Thomas Bond, Ph. D.

>>> Dr. Bond’s Ph. D. is in Inorganic Chemistry. Along with teaching he has maintained a farm in central Appalachia. He is a frequent contributor to newspapers, and the author of a book on life in Appalachia.

See also:

* — 1. “Commentary: The era of resistance to fracking is ending”, George Ahearn, Naples Daily News / August 29, 2018

2. “The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground”

3. “Fracking: Do the Economics Justify the Risks?”

Resisting disturbances & pollution in the scenic mountains

From an Article by Joseph Abbate, Blue Virginia, January 5, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requesting that it grant a rehearing request on the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). Kaine’s letter supports formal requests for rehearing made by a number of stakeholder groups and individual Virginians living along the proposed pipeline routes.

“The Commission approved the MVP and ACP on 2-1 votes when two of the five commissioner slots were vacant. The split decisions were most unusual – 98% of FERC orders in 2016 were unanimous. Given that the Commission now has a full complement of five members, there is a real concern about whether the divided rulings by a partial Commission fairly reflect the FERC position,” Kaine said.

Kaine also asked for clarification on “tolling orders,” which some have contended is a way for FERC to freeze legal appeals while allowing construction to move forward. Highlighting the unusual circumstances surrounding the approval of the pipelines, Kaine requested that FERC invoke its rehearing option to ensure maximum public confidence that its final decision followed every step of the process to the fullest extent.

While the letter does not endorse or oppose the views of these petitioners on the substantive merits of the applications, Kaine believes that FERC needs to make these decisions following a full and fair process that accounts for technical analysis and public input.

FERC approved the MVP and ACP jointly on October 13, 2017, with two of the five commissioner seats vacant. The new commissioners were sworn in on November 29 and December 7, respectively. In 2016, 98% of FERC orders were unanimous.

The full text of the letter appears below and here.

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

Dear Chairman McIntyre and Commissioners:

I request that FERC grant rehearings on the Mountain Valley Pipeline and Atlantic Coast Pipeline petitions.

The Commission approved the MVP and ACP on 2-1 votes when two of the five commissioner slots were vacant. The split decisions were most unusual – 98% of FERC orders in 2016 were unanimous. Given that the Commission now has a full complement of five members, there is a real concern about whether the divided rulings by a partial Commission fairly reflect the FERC position.

In addition, I would like to request fuller understanding of “tolling orders.” In many cases in which a request for rehearing is filed, FERC issues a tolling order to take more than the allotted 30 days to decide on the request, during which time legal options are frozen but construction may proceed.

This suggests that even if an original FERC decision changes upon either rehearing or judicial order, it could be moot if the project is already built and any impacts already felt. I would like to know whether this is your interpretation as well, and if so, whether you believe this is consistent with the intent of the rehearing option.

To be clear, I do not endorse or oppose the views of these petitioners on the substantive merits of these projects. Having Congress vote on individual projects would inevitably lead to partisan decision-making, and it is appropriate that a technical agency consider projects according to a robust public input process, laid out in federal law.

I appreciate your recent announcement that the Commission would revisit its 1999 standing policy on pipeline applications, in light of major changes to the U.S. energy economy since then. It is important for the public to have confidence in the integrity of FERC’s process. All I request is for every step of that process to be followed to the fullest extent of the law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Tim Kaine, U. S. Senate, January 5, 2018

Proposed MVP crossing in Monroe County, WV

From an Article by Brad McElhinny in WV Metro-News, January 09, 2018

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Environmental groups have filed a federal appeal to try to stop construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

The groups filed a motion asking for a stay of the project’s certificate of public convenience and necessity that was issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The motion was filed late Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The motion argues that the federal court system needs to act immediately to stop “irreparable environmental harm” that would occur once construction of the natural gas pipeline begins. The motion to stay contends property owners along the pipeline’s path would suffer damage to their property and lifestyles.

“Petitioners, whose members reside near, recreate on, and own land that will be taken and degraded by the MVP, seek the stay to prevent irreparable injury to their property, environmental, aesthetic, and recreational interests pending the Court’s review.”

The motion contends FERC’s didn’t critically evaluate the purpose and need for the MVP. The environmental groups also contend FERC lacked substantial evidence to support its finding of public convenience and necessity.

It aims to stop tree clearing and other construction that could start as soon as February 1: “Once private property is taken, mature trees are cut, steep slopes denuded, wetlands filled, trenches dug, and a high-pressure large-diameter pipeline is laid and filled with gas, the court can no longer restore the status quo,” the motion states.

MORE: Read the MVP Motion to Stay.

The pipeline developers wrote in a recent court filing that they need access to all the property no later than Feb. 1 to comply with a window for tree clearing required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The federal appeal was filed by attorneys for Appalachian Mountain Advocates on behalf of several other environmental organizations: Appalachian Voices, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Sierra Club, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and Wild Virginia.

“FERC failed to follow the law; in so doing, it is recklessly sacrificing our streams, public lands and private property rights,” stated Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition.

“Their refusal to fully evaluate the purpose and need of this project robs the public of benefiting from less harmful alternatives. FERC’s shoddy approval of MVP makes a mockery of their responsibility to the public interest.”

The Mountain Valley Pipeline, along with the similar but separate Atlantic Coast Pipeline, gained approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in mid-October. One of the commissioners dissented, calling the public interest of the projects into question.

The motion to stay reflects one of the points raised by Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, who contended FERC should have given greater attention to co-locating the MVP with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

The $3.5 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline would extend 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline over 303 miles to transport West Virginia natural gas into southern Virginia. The path would cross Greenbrier, Monroe, Nicholas, Summers, Braxton, Harrison, Lewis, Webster and Wetzel counties.

The MVP will be constructed and owned by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, a joint venture between EQT Midstream Partners, LP; NextEra US Gas Assets, LLC; Con Edison Transmission, Inc.; WGL Midstream; and RGC Midstream, LLC.

Starting February 1, MVP wants to start mobilizing construction crews across 11 segments of the project. Each of those is 30 miles long and will be cleared and constructed simultaneously.

MVP and its contractors will first fell and clear trees for properties used for service facilities and access roads. Work then will continue in a straight line down the path — clearing and grading the rights-of-way, ditching the line and moving the pipe.

Hitting that window is crucial, the company says, to minimize environmental consequences. Tree clearing has to happen prior to March 31 for locations with protected bats and before May 31 for species with protected migratory birds.

By mid-April to early May, MVP and the contractors intend to weld pipe in each of the 11 segments. They’ll then test the welds, lower the pipe into the trench, cover and grade the surface, work on crossings and tie-ins, clean and dry the pipeline and finally put as in.

The pipeline is planned to go into service by next December. The company says it has agreements in place to start shipping gas late this year.

The pipeline developers are also in federal court cases over eminent domain with some property owners fighting the claims.

Energy policy at US-DOE is disjointed

From the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Press Release, January 8, 2018

WASHINGTON – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) unanimously rejected the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposal to force energy markets to provide failing coal-fired power plants and nuclear plants guaranteed profits—at the cost of consumers. DOE Secretary Rick Perry asked FERC last September to essentially bailout these plants to counter the competitive wholesale electricity markets, in a move that would have benefited the owners of coal and nuclear power plants, rather than consumers, and jeopardized competitive wholesale electricity markets.

Below is a statement by Mike Jacobs, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“Federal regulators were right to reject a proposal that would have amounted to nothing more than giving coal and nuclear power plants billions of dollars in guaranteed profits at the expense of consumers. We don’t need to prop up plants that are closing due to market forces. Grid operators are having no problems keeping the lights on as more of the nation’s energy comes from clean, renewable sources.

“Energy regulators must follow the law and act on the best available science, and not pick winners and losers based on political alliances. Secretary Perry’s attempts to tip the scale in favor of uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants to provide a “resilience” benefit that doesn’t exist would have increased carbon emissions, raised costs to consumers, and distorted competitive markets.

“The question for FERC was: are you pro-markets and pro-solutions, or do you support old technology? It’s crucial to maintain market competition to generate solutions that fit unique energy demands. FERC’s decision is a step in the right direction in forward-looking improvements for a cleaner, more resilient and reliable electricity grid.

“If we’re going to adjust prices to value resilience, let’s be smart and get public benefits out of the changes. Rather than limiting contributions from certain energy sources, such as renewables, FERC must continue to consider what is best for consumers, drives private investment and protects the environment.”

###

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

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

FERC Rejects Perry’s Power Plan

From the Friends of the Earth, Press Release, January 8, 2018

WASHINGTON – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today rejected a Department of Energy proposal to change electricity market rules that would have bailed out failing nuclear and coal plants projects.

In response, Damon Moglen, Senior Strategic Advisor for Friends of the Earth, issued the following statement:

Tens of thousands of people wrote to FERC demanding the rejection of Secretary Perry’s ludicrous proposal to bailout failing nuclear and coal projects.

No matter how forceful industry lobbying, the market factors simply dictate that nuclear and coal power plants should be replaced by cheaper, cleaner, and safer solar and wind power.

This is a good day for the public and a good day for the cause of addressing catastrophic climate change.

###

Friends of the Earth is the U.S. voice of the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, with member groups in 77 countries. Since 1969, Friends of the Earth has fought to create a more healthy, just world.

Burbo Bank wind farm off the UK Liverpool coast

From an Essay by Rebecca Long-Bailey, The Guardian, Dec. 11, 2017

The climate crisis is the most significant issue facing humanity. Natural disasters are already displacing entire communities. More intense droughts are leading to unprecedented levels of food insecurity and hunger across the globe. This summer saw hurricanes, floods and fires affect hundreds of millions of people from India to Niger, Haiti to Houston. The UK is also vulnerable to climate impacts, with more destructive storms, prolonged floods, and heatwaves becoming the norm.

Our climate reality is increasingly unpredictable and daunting. However, it is also opening the space to collectively reimagine a different future for the UK. Fossil fuels helped ignite the first industrial revolution, but we now know that their continued use will threaten our very existence. Within the UK we have the skills, ingenuity and people to drive the next energy revolution, powered by renewables. For us to make this change a success, our politics must have environmental sustainability and social justice at its core.

This is why climate change is at the heart of Labour’s industrial strategy. At the last election, Labour pledged that 60% of the UK’s energy will come from low carbon or renewable sources by 2030 to help us meet the challenge of tackling climate change. Labour plans to achieve this mission by transforming our energy system by taking parts back into public control and exploring how we can ensure greater local control of energy generation and supply. We want to cultivate strengths in growing markets for green tech, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, reduce demand for heat, and maintain Britain’s climate commitments.

Two years ago, representatives from 196 countries met in Paris and committed to limiting global temperature rises to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels, with the aspirational target below 1.5C. The UK ratified the landmark Paris agreement the following year, promising to “continue our leadership on climate action”.

Despite its green rhetoric, the government’s record is not good. Its Clean Growth Strategy even admitted that the measures it recommended would not fulfil either the fourth or fifth carbon budgets. These budgets are restrictions on the total amount of greenhouse gases than can be emitted in a five-year period by the UK and are legally binding; for example the fourth carbon budget covers the period 2023-27, and the fifth covers 2028-2032.

We should be over-performing on our carbon budgets, not underperforming. The most recent autumn budget even threatened the future of new renewable generation by not admitting any more new low carbon electricity levies until 2025, on current forecasts, while at the same time giving tax breaks to oil and gas firms. The implications of the new levy regime could be catastrophic. Without alternative funding, it may spell the end of much low carbon development in the UK. With the success offshore, this is the moment to be seizing the opportunity to develop other forms of renewable energy. The Tories continue to push fracking despite its unpopularity across the country. The result of Tory policy not only undermines our climate change obligations but means many suffer from the effects of air pollution and fuel poverty.

I’m joining 100 other MPs, across parties, to call on our pension fund to remove its investments in fossil fuels.

That’s why I’m joining 100 other MPs, across parties, to call on our pension fund to remove its investments in fossil fuels. Our words in Paris must be matched by our actions in parliament – our constituents expect nothing less. This starts, but by no means finishes, with where we invest millions of pounds through our pensions. But we need to open up this conversation beyond parliament to ensure a just transition to a green economy.

This campaign is the fastest growing divestment movement of all time, which has seen more than $5tn of assets divested across more than 800 institutions. Campaigning for our universities, workplaces, unions, and pension funds to divest is one important way we can help to build a more sustainable society. Parliament must play its part.

>>> Rebecca Long-Bailey is shadow secretary for business, energy and industrial strategy and MP for Salford and Eccles

Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas!

Essay by S. Tom Bond, Jane Lew, Lewis County, WV, December 8, 2017

When I got to I-79 this morning, a truck carrying one of the propellers for a wind electrical generator held me up. It has been a while since that happened last time. At one time they came through once a week or more. On the other hand, increased activity of the companies with designs on the Marcellus-Utica is quite apparent.

Wind power is, right now, the cheapest source of electrical power. Nebraska produces enough to supply its entire need, right now. Solar is making exponential gains with some 5500 schools, and you can find figures for many large corporations such as Walmart, 145 megawatts, Target, 147.5 MW, Apple, 93.9 MW and Prologis, 107.8 MW. These figures are a year old, now they doubtless generate more of their own power.

Natural gas was once advertised as a “transition fuel,” but it is clear its exponents don’t have that in mind any more. That is the reason for the big pipelines we hear so much about. That kind of investment means they expect to extract every bit of natural gas possible, and turn it into carbon dioxide, climate effects be damned. Confusion about climate science is not among serious investigators, but a subterfuge financed by the carbon dioxide generators. An honest “transition fuel” industry would be thinking about making the present infrastructure last to be superseded by what everyone knows must come. They wouldn’t be dumping in vast new investment.

The Saudi’s know what’s coming, they are industriously developing solar, which they have in abundance, in hopes of selling their oil elsewhere, even at very low prices. The Chinese know what’s coming, they are leading in the solar revolution. They don’t have the infrastructure to develop gas, and their dense population in the Eastern portions of the country inhibits it. We use solar in the U. S. for remote locations, even the gas companies use solar for some purposes to avoid batteries and buiding electrical lines. Dominion has one on my farm, and I use solar for part of my electric fence.

What allows this foolishness on the part of natural gas owners? It is a branch of the petroleum industry, and the U. S. was a leader in that development. Our oil was easy to get, and gas was a by-product. Eventually pipes were developed enough to move the gas, and it was convenient to use where it could be piped. It still is, of course. Oil was exported for decades generating huge profits. The geology is now well known, and conventional oil and gas, which lies in interconnected pores in rock is pretty well exhausted.

The unconventional gas lies in pores that are not interconnected. The Marcellus and Utica formations, for example, must be crushed to let the gas out. That is the origin of the name “fracking,’” for fracturing the rock. Yields are around 6-7% of the gas in the rock, just a small fraction of conventional yields. Recent yield increases reported for unconventional wells is due to lengthing the fractured well length, not to increased recovery to the gas in place.

The petroleum industry is mature, investment intense, and by now, low labor. Compare that to solar and wind, which are relatively labor intensive. When you buy solar, the money invested goes to people who install it, not to remote investors.

The petroleum industry is mature in still another sense. It has a vast reservoir of favorable legislation and government policy. It has influence on new law and current policy, including enforcement. In my youth, coal strippers met enforcement officers with a cigar with a one hundred dollar bill wrapped around it. (That would be about nine hundred twenty five dollars today.) Petroleum influence today is less conspicuous than that, but just as powerful.

In addition to the broad attack on science, some companies are trying to get around free speech provisions of the Constitution to attack protestors. Some use eminent domain for private profit, and some ignore laws about water contamination. All make surface unusable for some other use later. On of my favorites abuses is taking pipeline rights of way for very rewarding gains, but leaving the farmer to pay all land tax. He looses use of the land except for grazing, and the right of way never returns to the land. What is the company planning to do with it after the pipeline is no longer used? Speculate on it, of course!

This expansion of natural gas can only inhibit conversion to renewable energy. For the country, and the world as a whole, this may be the worst effect. We in the U. S. ought to be leaders in developing renewables. We have the science. However, China is gaining. It is reported they have 500,000 engineers in training. No doubt they have the ability to manufacture more cheaply, plus they have the rare earth elements current solar panels require. The U. S. must buy them from China.

Investment should be going into development for the future, not dragging the U. S. in to a position that makes the change more difficult. But that is what is going on with investment and with government at the present time.