The climate crisis will require life style changes and spending changes!

From Stephanie Wissman, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 9, 2023

Regarding the article “Pittsburgh-based plan passed over as hydrogen hub selections draw statewide praise” (Oct. 13, TribLIVE): Building a lower carbon future means ensuring the success of the Department of Energy’s new hydrogen hubs. The hubs are networks of clean hydrogen producers, consumers and connective infrastructure working together to kick-start the growth of a low-carbon hydrogen economy.

Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region’s abundant natural gas and skilled workforce make our area a prime location for hydrogen development, with the promise of economic growth and advancing shared climate goals.

A recent study found that if policies are implemented to support all types of hydrogen development, it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 37% through 2050 and inject billions of dollars into the economy through jobs. To unlock these benefits, we need to start building the necessary infrastructure.

Given a workforce of over 423,000 already supported by the natural gas and oil industry, Pennsylvania is ready to embrace this new energy opportunity. With over half the proposed hubs using hydrogen produced from natural gas and carbon capture, this project will kick-start the next generation of energy development.

Pennsylvania has a proud history of energy production and a wealth of potential for innovation. Let’s all work together to make hydrogen a cornerstone of our cleaner energy future.

>>> Stephanie Catarino Wissman, Executive Director, American Petroleum Institute Pennsylvania, Harrisburg

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

‘Climate Scam’: 180+ Groups Tell Biden to Drop Support for Hydrogen

From an Article by Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, August 22, 2023

“Calling hydrogen clean energy is a scam to prop up the oil and gas industry,” said one campaigner.

More than 95% of hydrogen produced in the United States is made using fossil fuels, but that hasn’t stopped its backers — including industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — from touting the energy source as critical to the fight against climate change.

A diverse coalition of advocacy organizations on Tuesday implored the Biden administration to stop buying into the hype.

In a letter to officials at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), more than 180 groups called on the administration to abandon plans to invest in hydrogen projects, warning that “a large-scale buildout of hydrogen infrastructure will further exacerbate the climate crisis and disproportionately harm people of color, low-income communities, and Indigenous peoples.”

Two recently enacted pieces of legislation—the Inflation Reduction Act and a bipartisan infrastructure measure championed by oil industry ally Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—include benefits for the hydrogen industry.

The latter bill authorized the Department of Energy to spend roughly $8 billion on developing Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs), drawing outrage from community organizers in Colorado, New Mexico, and other states behind the Western Interstate Hydrogen Hub, a project aimed at expanding U.S. hydrogen production.

“We recognize that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs DOE to fund these hubs, but we ask DOE to find a different path and reject this false solution. It’s time for DOE to do the right thing,” the groups wrote in their letter on Tuesday.

The groups behind the letter — including the Center for Biological Diversity and Food & Water Watch — note that hydrogen production generates significant planet-warming emissions.

“Hydrogen lifecycle emissions which use carbon capture and storage are 20% greater than directly burning natural gas or coal, and 60% greater than burning diesel oil, because of the increased fossil fuels required to power it,” the letter states. “The process of producing gray and blue hydrogen is a major source of fugitive methane emissions from flaring, transportation, and other upstream processes—releasing even more potent greenhouse gases and exacerbating atmospheric warming over the next two decades.”

“President Biden can’t claim to be a climate leader while his administration continues to embrace the hydrogen climate scam and other policies that continue to perpetuate fossil fuel production and infrastructure.”

As Nature explained in an editorial warning against “overhyping” hydrogen, “Most hydrogen is currently made by processes—such as steam reformation of natural gas (methane)—that produce large amounts of CO2 as a by-product.”

“Although ‘green’ hydrogen can be made by using electricity from renewable sources to split water molecules,” the outlet added, “this process is costly compared with more conventional production methods.”

Silas Grant, a campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity, said Tuesday that “calling hydrogen clean energy is a scam to prop up the oil and gas industry.”

“The Biden administration’s plans to expand this dirty energy will only increase oil and gas extraction at a time when the climate emergency demands the opposite,” said Grant. “We need investment in affordable, reliable, community-supported renewable energy like wind and solar.”

The coalition’s letter comes two months after New Mexico-based advocacy organizations urged the Biden administration to reject funding for the Western Interstate Hydrogen Hub, arguing the initiative would “devastate public health, clean air, Indigenous sacred places, and the climate.”

“The climate crisis poses a grave threat to all life on Earth,” the groups wrote in a letter to the U.S. Energy Department. “DOE has the power to help lead a transformation to a more sustainable future. To do so, you must help phase out fossil fuels and reject false solutions like hydrogen.”

But the Biden White House has yet to waver in its support for hydrogen, claiming in a brief last month that “clean hydrogen has the potential to play an important role in decarbonizing the U.S. economy.”

Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, countered Tuesday that investments in hydrogen are “a distraction from real climate action that will cause more pollution, more strain on water resources, and more extraction of climate warming fossil fuels.”

“President Biden can’t claim to be a climate leader while his administration continues to embrace the hydrogen climate scam and other policies that continue to perpetuate fossil fuel production and infrastructure,” Walsh added.

The Governor should issue a ban on open burning, but has not so far ….

From an Article by Chris Lawrence, WV Metro News, November 6, 2023

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The low humidity, warmer temperatures, and the steady wind in recent days has turned the West Virginia forest and the new leaf litter on the forest floor into a potential tinder box.

As of Monday, the West Virginia Division of Forestry reported more than 100 forest fires in the state and Deputy State Forester Tony Evans believed the number was well beyond.

“Over the weekend we’ve had so many fires that have popped up, we definitively know we have more than that,” said Evans. Some of the fires were large in scale.

“We have several big fires. One down in McDowell County is several hundred acres. Raleigh County’s got a big fire Kanawha has a couple. Boone County has several fires that are going to be several hundred acres, same thing with Mingo County,” he explained.

According to Evans, the Southern West Virginia topography lends itself well to a wildfire and they tend to get out of control faster in the steep hills of the coalfields than in other parts of the state. The terrain also makes them more difficult to put out.

The fires are so widespread, Evans said they are asking people to stop calling 911 with just reports of seeing or smelling smoke. Since those kind of reports are too vague to help pinpoint a fire. “Unless they see an actual fire or a big column of smoke coming up from a specific place, don’t call 911 just if they are seeing or smelling smoke in the air,” he explained..

The Kanawha County Commission penned a letter to the Division of Forestry asking for a total burning ban until some measurable rainfall comes. Evans said that decision would have to come from the Governor’s office.

The fall forest fire rules are in effect, meaning that any outdoor burning must be done between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. However, under the present conditions, Evans said use common sense.

“You know if it’s dry and windy, wait until we get some moisture. It doesn’t take very much for the wind to pick up an ember and put it out into the woods or dry grass and we have a forest fire,” he said.

From the Western Environmental Law Center, January 2023

From the Letter of Mike Scott, National Oil and Gas Campaign Manager, Sierra Club, September 16, 2023

From 9 to 5, I’m the Sierra Club’s Oil and Gas Campaign Manager. When I’m not working, you can find me hunting, fishing, rafting, or hiking in Eastern Montana where I live. I love this place, and one of the reasons I live here is so that I can enjoy the outdoors.

Oil and gas production has long been a part of this region, which brings many problems. Radioactive waste from drill rigs, brine water (often saltier than the ocean), and even crude oil ends up in our rivers and on our land. Pumpjacks (those big pieces of equipment that look like a nodding donkey or horse head) sit idle and rusting on the landscape. I live between three large oil refineries, and my farm actually was covered in oil from the 2011 Silvertip pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River. Oil and gas is everywhere in my community and in this part of the country.

That is why we need stronger rules that limit oil and gas exploration!

When oil and gas companies are allowed to operate however they see fit, it leads to pollution and accidents that impact the land, wildlife, and people. For example, unsealed, abandoned wells can leak oil and other pollutants into the air and water. This means drinking water can become contaminated, and the fish we eat are riddled with toxins. It also means a visit to public lands near oil and gas production could expose us to pollutants in the air that can make us sick.

Right now, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is updating its oil and gas leasing rules. This is a big deal because the current rules are broken and outdated, leading to the terrible impacts I’ve seen in Montana and across the West. The proposed rules don’t fix everything, but they do start to make reforms that will hold oil and gas companies accountable for their operations. This proposal will also end some of the built-in subsidies that oil and gas companies hoard when they lease public lands. A more transparent process will mean that our perspectives are finally taken into account before dirty fossil fuel projects are dumped into our backyards.

Join me in telling the BLM to strengthen these rules and finalize them as soon as possible!

>> Thanks for all you do, Mike Scott, National Oil and Gas Campaign Manager, Sierra Club

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

SUMMARY APPROACH ~ For decades, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has sold off public lands to oil and gas companies for pennies on the dollar. This broken system has locked up vast amounts of land from any use other than extraction and left thousands of dangerous and polluting abandoned wells with our communities footing the bill to clean them up.

The BLM just proposed an update to leasing rules that would finally hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they cause, end subsidies for oil and gas producers, and add competition to the leasing process. Tell the BLM to strengthen these rules and finalize them as soon as possible!

Take Action Now!

The Thunder Mountain concept has a booming history!

Review Process Underway at WV-DEP, Air Quality Division until July 27, 2023

Appreciation goes to the Staff of the WV-DEP for the open question and public comment sessions July 20th on the proposed Medical Waste gasifier/incinerator to be sited in Jackson County. As all the questions indicated, this proposal is hardly understood at all! Most important were the questions and comments of Mr. Buckley from Jackson County. The residents there not only lack understanding, they are not even aware!

A schematic diagram or flow sheet was promised to Mr. Buckley, which I also ask about during the question session. I also stated that the Application Document for this project that is on the WV-DEP website was 1974 pages in size when I tried to use it. (It apparently has been growing in size as time passes.) This document is too large. I was unable to fully load or navigate in it beyond page 38.

1. Please decompose the Application Document and designate one component (separate document) as The Application Document. Then, the other supporting documents or separate appendices will be supplements. Please forward these ASAP to the participants and any others that may be considered party to this matter.

2. Please obtain or prepare a reasonable process flow sheet showing some technical detail and email these to Mr. Buckley, Mr. Nichols (this writer), and the other participants. Be sure to indicate the By-Pass feature, its input and exit. And, indicate the continuous emission monitoring (CEM) locations and flare locations, if any.

3. Please consider holding a Public Event in Jackson County in mid-September on this Application. The hot months of the vacation season are to be avoided. The local residents there deserve to become informed of this proposed 20 ton per day facility involving unusually noxious materials. Such a Public Meeting was held in Follansbee, WV, regarding a similar size waste incinerator. (Have you estimated the TPD of GHG?)

4. Additional justification for the above requests is the unusually complex if not complicated nature of the process, of the control system and of the draft Air Quality Permit itself. Most commentors noted this as well as the complex data stream that will result. Generally, it was noted that the draft Permit is far too lenient in its time periods and deadlines, given the toxic substances that can escape to the local environment. Providing the operators 15 days to fix any specific leak, is just one example.

>> Submitted to WV-DEP, July 21, 2023, Duane Nichols, Nichols330@gmail.com

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

YOUTUBE VIDEO AVAILABLE: VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING ON AIR QUALITY PERMIT FOR THUNDER MOUNTAIN GASIFIER SYSTEM, WV-DEP, JULY 20, 2023

https://youtu.be/ULSaBZoo3rg

An Article, an Audio CD Set, and a best selling Book by Elizabeth Kolbert

Scientific Article by Giavonni Strona & Corey Bradshaw, Science Magazine, Dec. 16, 2022

ABSTRACT ~ Although theory identifies coextinctions as a main driver of biodiversity loss, their role at the planetary scale has yet to be estimated. We subjected a global model of interconnected terrestrial vertebrate food webs to future (2020–2100) climate and land-use changes. We predict a 17.6% (± 0.16% SE) average reduction of local vertebrate diversity globally by 2100, with coextinctions increasing the effect of primary extinctions by 184.2% (± 10.9% SE) on average under an intermediate emissions scenario. Communities will lose up to a half of ecological interactions, thus reducing trophic complexity, network connectance, and community resilience. The model reveals that the extreme toll of global change for vertebrate diversity might be of secondary importance compared to the damages to ecological network structure.

INTRODUCTION ~ The planet has entered the sixth mass extinction (1–5). There are multiple causes underlying the rapid increase in observed and modeled extinction rates in recent times, of which land-use change, overharvesting, pollution, climate change, and biological invasions figure as dominant processes (6). However, assessing the relative importance and the realistic impact of such drivers at the global scale remains a challenge. Another aspect rendering assessment difficult are the synergies between drivers — a species might go extinct for multiple, simultaneous reasons, and in such contexts, ecological interactions play a fundamental role in predicting its fate (7). Growing recognition of the importance of species interactions in promoting the emergence of biodiversity in complex natural communities implies that an additional, fundamental component of biodiversity loss is represented by the amplification of primary extinctions across ecological networks. Coextinction — the loss of species caused by direct or indirect effects stemming from other extinctions — is now recognized as a major contributor to global biodiversity loss, strongly amplifying the effect of primary (e.g., climate-driven) extinctions (8–11).

Networks of ecological interactions are central to global patterns of diversity loss not only because coextinctions can be triggered by other extinction drivers, but also because network structure and dynamics might modulate several processes that can either reduce or increase extinction rate. For example, it is intuitive that a species’ success in colonizing a new area depends strongly on its ability to exploit local resources while simultaneously escaping enemies (predators and parasites). The addition of the new species might also initiate substantial changes to and have important cascading effects in the local network. Ignoring the structure of ecological networks and how they reconfigure as their constituent diversity changes therefore gives a possibly misleading view of the future of global diversity.

Previous attempts to predict the future of global diversity in the face of climate change and habitat modification have only considered the direct effects of these drivers on species (typically on single taxonomic groups), without explicitly accounting for ecological interactions. For instance, Thomas et al. (12) used projections of species’ distributions and species-area relationships to predict extinction rates for 20% of Earth’s surface, and Malcolm et al. (13) applied both species-area and endemic-area relationships to predictions of biome shift under climate change in Biodiversity Hotspots. van Vuuren et al. (14) also applied species-area relationships to vascular plants to project extinctions under different land-use and climate-change scenarios within the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and Jetz et al. (15) used a similar approach for birds. Others have applied analogous techniques to many other taxa, including lizards (16), crop wild relatives (17), chelonians (18), bird, amphibians, and corals (19). Later, Warren et al. (20) applied point-process and global circulation models to predict climate change–induced shifts in species’ distributions, and Urban (21) did a meta-analysis (including many of the studies cited above) to predict extinction rates of various taxa under several climate-change scenarios. Despite this extensive research foundation, future inferences of biodiversity’s fate over the coming century are likely to underestimate extinctions arising from global change (11).

Apart from the obvious modeling and computational challenges to incorporate interactions among species, the main reason why there are few studies accounting for interactions is that obtaining sufficient data in most communities is intractable. Therefore, global-scale modeling of entire ecosystems appears to be the only viable solution, even if a challenging one (11, 22). Recent developments in network approaches have shown that potential ecological interactions can be derived by applying different techniques (e.g., machine learning) to available datasets on species distribution and ecology (23, 24). In previous work (11), we built on that idea to generate global-scale models of biodiversity by including species interactions using virtual species constructed to follow real-world archetypes. In such synthetic approaches, a virtual species is a plausible ecological entity that has a combination of ecological traits consistent with real-world species despite not corresponding exactly to them.

There are several advantages in using virtual species in this manner. The first is that once the rules have been set to generate virtual species, current gaps and biases in biodiversity sampling cease to be a limitation; we can use virtual species to populate the entire Earth and generate plausible ecological communities, even in areas where data on local diversity are scarce or missing. Second, virtual species avoid preconceptions (and biases) about current biodiversity patterns, permitting instead a focus on the processes involved in change. Here, we can populate an entire virtual planet with species, let them develop communities based on a modest set of realistic ecological rules and assumptions, and then explore the emerging patterns. With such an approach, real-world data serve as a template for generating the virtual species and for identifying the basic ecological rules controlling community dynamics and as a benchmark with which to validate the realism of modeled predictions.

We previously demonstrated how coextinctions increase the pace of annihilation of life on Earth by up to 10 times relative to primary extinctions, but only in the face of catastrophic, no-return environmental change modeled as either extreme planetary heating or cooling (11). Although an instructive proof of concept, that model contained many simplifications and was applied to (hopefully) unrealistic scenarios of global change. Building on that original approach, here we developed a more complex, and ecologically realistic dynamic model to represent all terrestrial vertebrate communities with which we project future biodiversity trends. By accounting for both primary extinctions and their resulting coextinctions, the model predicts the cumulative toll on global biodiversity of different climate and land-use change projections up to 2100 at a spatial scale of 1° × 1° and at a monthly temporal resolution. In addition to providing estimates of potential global diversity loss, the model quantifies the relative contribution of the different extinction drivers at the global scale for the first time.

This Article continues in Science Magazine.

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

See also: The Sixth Extinction? | Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker Magazine, May 18, 2009

Join CCAN's Virtual Night of Action to STOP Manchin's Dirty Deal!

From the Appeal of Grace Tuttle, Protect Our Water—Heritage—Rights, December 7, 2022

Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the full text of the Building American Energy Security Act of 2022. He also urged his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support amending the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to include this comprehensive, bipartisan permitting reform and complete the critical Mountain Valley Pipeline.

“Failing to pass the bipartisan, comprehensive energy permitting reform that our country desperately needs is not an acceptable option. As our energy security becomes more threatened every day, Americans are demanding Congress put politics aside and act on commonsense solutions to solve the issues facing us. The Senate must vote to amend the NDAA to ensure the comprehensive, bipartisan permitting reform our country desperately needs is included,” said Chairman Manchin.

To read the Building American Energy Security Act of 2022 in full, click here.

To read a summary of the changes, click here.

CCAN Event: RSVP:
https://act.chesapeakeclimate.org/page/46961/data/1

Description: Join CCAN’s Virtual Night of Action to STOP Manchin’s Dirty Deal!

It’s time. Our senators need to hear from us. We will not stand for Manchin’s dirty deal. We can’t make policy with backroom negotiations that exclude impacted communities. We can’t keep feeding our addiction to fossil fuels.

Our goal is to get 150 residents to email their senator in one night to stop the dirty deal.

6:00-6:15 Latest policy update, Q&A
6:15-6:30 Outreach to personal VA friends and family
6:30-7:00 Textbank with CCAN

>> Grace Tuttle, Development & Programs Coordinator
Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR)

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

P.S. The members of the US Congress need to hear from you. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) is trying to include his Dirty Deal – to roll back bedrock environmental protections and force the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline – in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We can only block this if enough Senators stand up and promise to vote against the NDAA if it includes the Dirty Deal.

Priority List:
Senator Kaine (202) 224-4024
Senator Warner (202) 224-2023
Senator Carper (202) 224-2441
Senator Schumer (202) 224-6542
Senator Schatz (202) 224-3934
Senator Murray (202) 224-2621
Senator Reed (202) 224-4642
Senator Leahy (202) 224-4242
Senator Warnock (202) 224-3643

Hydrogen has become ripe with hype — the answer is blowing in the wind.

From an Article by Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com, November 27, 2022

>>> In the United States, the Department of Energy is doling out billions of dollars in federal funding to create up to 10 “hydrogen hubs”.

>>> International Renewable Energy Agency: diverting too much green energy toward hydrogen production could be counterproductive.

Contrary to much decarbonization hype, jumping on the green hydrogen bandwagon is not a silver bullet solution to climate change. In fact, it’s a double-edged sword. A versatile energy carrier, hydrogen is projected to play a major part in decarbonization of global manufacturing and industrial supply chains, but its production, transport, and conversion require major inversions of energy and investment that could slow down the rest of the green energy transition if mismanaged.

Hydrogen is touted as a key element in any decarbonization trajectory because unlike solar and wind energy, hydrogen can be used as a combustible fuel source. This means that it can replace fossil fuels in industrial furnaces, but instead of emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses when burned, it leaves behind nothing but water vapor. The implications of a wide-scale replacement in high-heat industrial applications are enormous. “Replacing the fossil fuels now used in furnaces that reach 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,732 degrees Fahrenheit) with hydrogen gas could make a big dent in the 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions that now come from industry,” Bloomberg Green wrote last year in report titled “Why Hydrogen Is the Hottest Thing in Green Energy.”

The problem is that hydrogen is only as green as the energy source used to make it. The process of creating hydrogen is energy intensive, and the vast majority of hydrogen being produced today is made using fossil fuels. This is referred to as gray hydrogen, and it is already used widely in global industry. Green hydrogen is made with all renewable energy sources. ‘Blue hydrogen’ is also sometimes used as a third designation referring to hydrogen produced using natural gas, which yields lower emissions than other fossil fuels and is seen by some as a stepping stone to full decarbonization.

While it seems like it would be a no-brainer that the increased production and consumption of green hydrogen would be an obvious win for the energy transition, however, the reality is not so simple. A new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) warns against the “indiscriminate use of hydrogen,” cautioning policy-makers to weigh their priorities carefully and to consider that extensive use of hydrogen “may not be in line with the requirements of a decarbonised world.” The report goes on to single out green hydrogen, arguing that it “requires dedicated renewable energy that could be used for other end uses.” As such, diverting too much green energy toward hydrogen production could actually slow down the decarbonization movement as a whole.

According to current projections, hydrogen use is going to skyrocket between now and 2050 in order to meet the energy and fuel demands of a net-zero emissions future. In G-7 countries alone, hydrogen use could balloon to four to seven times its current size by mid-century.

In the United Kingdom, the government is experimenting with the use of hydrogen to heat homes in the midst of a major energy crisis. By next year the nation will have chosen its very first “hydrogen village” to take part in a two-year pilot program. Not everyone is enthusiastic about the experiment, but it is likely just the beginning of such ventures as European nations move to shore up domestic energy independence while simultaneously trying to reach their stated emissions targets.

In the United States, the Department of Energy is doling out billions of dollars in federal funding to create up to 10 “hydrogen hubs” across the nation. These would function as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers and connective infrastructure located in close proximity.” And the $7 billion dollars earmarked for the hubs is only one part of hydrogen investment at the federal level. The Inflation Reduction Act also provisioned a clean hydrogen production tax credit and created other decarbonization incentives such as carbon capture tax credits that could prove to be a boon to the nascent but fast-growing green hydrogen sector.

On the whole this is good news for the energy transition and for global climate goals. But the growth of the green hydrogen industry will need to be balanced with other energy needs going forward for a smooth trajectory toward decarbonization. (Such a balance is not happening. Moreover, decarbonization needs to mean LESS production of greenhouse gases rather than relying on CO2 removal from the atmosphere, an extremely expensive activity at a scale that would make a difference. DGN)

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.

The Halliburton Exclusions have exempted Drilling & Fracking for far too long

​——→ Check out the schedule and events here​

Speakers from the following Groups: Beyond Petrochemicals Campaign, Beyond Plastics, Beyond Extreme Energy, Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, Communitopia, Concerned Citizens of Navarro County, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability(DCS), Earth Dog Films, Fracking the System, Earthworks, Environmental Health News, FracTracker Alliance, Keep It Wild, Lisa Johnson and Associates, OJI:SDA’ Sustainable Indigenous Futures, Ohio River Valley Institute, Park Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, Property Rights and Pipeline Center, ReImagine Appalachia, Sierra Club, The Natural History Museum, Yale School of Public Health and Yale Cancer Center

Topics / Presentations: Precautionary approach to fighting oil & gas; Playing the long game: Overcoming defeat and setting new goals in the oil & gas fight; Telling the truth about plastic pollution;Pushing back against the Bitcoin Empire in Texas; “We Refuse to Die” – On our exhibition, movement building, and media campaign to stop the petrochemical expansion; Stopping gas exports to protect public health and avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis!; Shared Prosperity in the Ohio River Valley; Using maps to inspire action; Journalism on plastic, toxic chemicals, and oil & gas pollution; Victory against the Epiphany Allegheny corporation and the ongoing battle against the Northern Access Pipeline in NY; Building power across labor, environmental advocates, faith leaders, and racial justice leaders in Appalachia; The Beyond Petrochemicals Campaign; Colorado’s oil and gas wars – Upcoming documentary film; FLIR Cameras – Making the invisible visible; Skill building for grassroots organizers; Legal advocacy for fracking victims and learning industry tactics; Getting a statewide fracking ban on the ballot in Michigan; Protecting landowners’ rights against pipeline development; and Addressing the Health Impacts of Fracking

Full details and guest speaker profiles are underway and will be added soon!

At the conclusion of the summit you’re invited to participate in a National Strategy call to discuss what is next and needed for the anti-fracking movement to be successful. Please participate and share what you’re working on with others.

Please register and invite your colleagues at https://lu.ma/2022-network-summit

Sincerely, Ryan Clover, Halt the Harm Network

The time has come for everyone to adopt new lifestyles to minimize GHG.

An Overview from Oxfam Policy & Practice, United Kingdom, November 7, 2022

The world’s richest people emit huge and unsustainable amounts of carbon and, unlike ordinary people, 50% to 70% of their emissions result from their investments. New analysis of the investments of 125 of the world’s richest billionaires shows that on average they are emitting 3 million tonnes a year, more than a million times the average for someone in the bottom 90% of humanity.

The study also finds billionaire investments in polluting industries such as fossil fuels and cement are double the average for the Standard & Poor 500 group of companies. Billionaires hold extensive stakes in many of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations, which gives them the power to influence the way these companies act. Governments must hold them to account, legislating to compel corporates and investors to reduce carbon emissions, enforcing more stringent reporting requirements and imposing new taxation on wealth and investments in polluting industries.

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

NOTICE ~ Twenty (20) of the richest billionaires are emitting more than 8000 times more greenhouse gases (GHG) than the billion poorest people.

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

INFORMATION FOR COMPARISONS WITH LARGE NUMBERS:

1,000,000,000. One BILLION seconds is equal to 31.5 years.