[TheClimate.Vote] November 29 2017 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Nov 29 09:01:18 EST 2017
/November 29, 2017
/
*Reject oil-by-train terminal for Vancouver, Wash., state panel urges
Gov. Inslee
<https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/reject-oil-by-train-terminal-for-vancouver-wash-state-panel-urges-gov-inslee/>
*Seattle Times - A state energy council, in a unanimous Tuesday vote,
recommended that Gov. Jay Inslee reject a permit for a major new
crude-by-rail oil terminal in Vancouver, Washington.
The action could doom a project that has sought to bring more Bakken
Shale crude from North Dakota and Montana to West Coast refineries in a
bid that backers say would reduce dependence on foreign oil.*
*The project has faced fierce resistance, in part because of concerns
over derailments and fires from trains that would carry the crude oil.
The permitting review that began in 2013 was the longest in Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council history and drew some 250,000 public
comments.
Based on the vote, taken during a brief afternoon meeting, a written
recommendation will be drafted and sent to Inslee, who will have 60 days
to decide whether to accept or reject the council recommendation.
The Vancouver Energy terminal would service an average four oil trains a
day. That petroleum would be loaded onto vessels for delivery to
Washington and California refineries.
The terminal is one of a series of high-profile fossil-fuel projects
proposed in Washington state in recent years, all of which have faced
strong headwinds from environmentalists seeking to block these
developments and accelerate a transition to renewable energy.
"We are extremely disappointed, especially after a review of more than
four years in a process that state law says should take one year," said
Jeff Hymas, a spokesman for the Vancouver Energy project, in a written
statement. The council "has set an impossible standard for new energy
facilities.
This decision sends a clear anti-development message that will have a
chilling effect on business in the state of Washington."
Environmentalists are looking to Inslee to accept the council's
recommendation and kill the permit...*
*The prospect of 28 additional oil trains traveling through Western
states each week helped galvanize opponents.
Derailments and explosions rank among the big concerns, with a series of
high-profile derailments and fires during the past half decade
underscoring the risks of oil trains. Those included a July 2013
derailment by the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people
and a June 2016 incident on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge
that caused no injuries but prompted a partial evacuation of the town of
Mosier after four derailed cars caught fire.*
*https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/reject-oil-by-train-terminal-for-vancouver-wash-state-panel-urges-gov-inslee/
-
*EFSEC UNANIMOUSLY REJECTS OIL TERMINAL: GOVERNOR INSLEE HAS FINAL CALL*
<http://www.standuptooil.org/>
Energy Council Joins Washington's Attorney General, City of Vancouver,
Tribal Nations, and Hundreds of Thousands of Washingtonians in Opposing
Largest Oil Train Terminal in U.S.
November 28, 2017 (Olympia, WA) – Today the Washington Energy Facility
Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) unanimously recommended denial of the
Tesoro Savage oil terminal in Vancouver, Washington. The final decision
falls to Governor Jay Inslee, and community leaders from around the
region are calling on Governor Inslee to deny the proposal swiftly,
ending a four-year saga over the massive, 360,000-barrel-per day oil
train terminal. A final written recommendation will be issued on
December 19th....
"EFSEC followed the law that requires it to balance the need for this
project against protection of human health and the environment," said
Kristen Boyles, the Earthjustice attorney representing community and
environmental groups before the agency. "Tesoro Savage failed this
standard, and we trust Governor Inslee will agree."
http://www.standuptooil.org/
http://www.standuptooil.org/resolutions-and-statements/
*300 Scientists Oppose Trump Nominee: 'More Dangerous Than Climate
Change is Lying'
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112017/kathleen-harnett-white-senate-confirmation-ceq-vote-trump-climate-change-carbon-dioxide>*
Kathleen Hartnett White's nomination for the top White House environment
post is set for a Senate committee vote on Wednesday.
By Staff, InsideClimate News
More than 300 scientists wrote to the Senate on Tuesday opposing
Kathleen Hartnett White's nomination to the top White House environment
post. They cited the importance of scientific integrity and wrote that
they oppose her nomination "because one thing more dangerous than
climate change is lying."
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
scheduled to vote on White's nomination to head the Council on
Environmental Quality. The next step would be a confirmation vote by the
full Senate, where approval would place a fossil fuels industry
supporter and vocal denier of mainstream climate science at the center
of federal interagency policy discussions on energy and environment.
Also up for a vote in the committee meeting is Andrew Wheeler, a coal
lobbyist who President Donald Trump picked to be second in command at
the Environmental Protection Agency.
White, a fellow of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation and
former head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has
written extensively against regulation of carbon dioxide, which she
calls "the gas of life." She has also written in favor of increasing the
use of fossil fuels and has criticized the Endangered Species Act.
"As scientists and scholars, we are alarmed by Ms. Hartnett White's
actions and statements, particularly, her recent assertion that carbon
dioxide is not a harmful pollutant," the scientists wrote in their
letter to senators. "There is unanimous agreement across peer-reviewed
climate science that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released
by human activities are contributing to the harmful effects of climate
change. To state otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is
simply unsupportable."..
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112017/kathleen-harnett-white-senate-confirmation-ceq-vote-trump-climate-change-carbon-dioxide*
American leaders should read their official climate science report
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/27/american-leaders-should-read-their-official-climate-science-report>
**The United States Global Change Research Program report paints a bleak
picture of the consequences of climate denial*The United States Global
Change Research Program recently released a report
<http://www.globalchange.gov/> on the science of climate change and its
causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was prepared by
top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up to date science.
If you want to understand climate change and a single document that
summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is complete,
readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what we know, how
we know it, how confident we are, and how likely certain events are to
happen if we continue on our business-as-usual path.
To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2 degrees F (1 degree C) since
the beginning of the 20^th century. Today's Earth is the warmest it has
ever been in the history of modern civilization.
There is some hope
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/30/new-data-gives-hope-for-meeting-the-paris-climate-targets>
in this report. Even with recent economic growth, the rate at which we
emit greenhouse gases has not risen as fast as the past. This means it
is possible to have a healthy economy and a healthy environment. ..
For those who say dealing with climate change is too expensive, they
repeat a myth
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution>.
In fact, ignoring climate change is much more expensive then dealing
with it. Had we taken action years ago when scientists first warned us
of the problem we would be well on our way to effective mitigation.
We've lost valuable years to the denialists. The more time we waste, the
more expensive this problem will be in both lives and dollars.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/27/american-leaders-should-read-their-official-climate-science-report*
(Video) Climate Scientists Now Have Legal Allies
<https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/28/climate-scientists-now-have-legal-allies/>
*New video <https://vimeo.com/241749687> from Climate Science Legal
Defense fund features several of my interviews with well known
scientists who have been targeted by the anti-science movement.
https://vimeo.com/241749687
https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/28/climate-scientists-now-have-legal-allies/*
Why climate change is creating a new generation of child brides
<https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-generation-of-child-brides-in-africa>*
As global warming exacerbates drought and floods, farmers' incomes
plunge – and girls as young as 13 are given away to stave off poverty
by Gethin Chamberlain (words and photographs)
It was the flood that ensured that Ntonya Sande's first year as a
teenager would also be the first year of her married life. Up to the
moment the water swept away her parents' field in Kachaso in the Nsanje
district of Malawi, they had been scraping a living. Afterwards they
were reduced to scavenging for bits of firewood to sell.
So when a young man came to their door and asked for the 13-year old's
hand in marriage, the couple didn't think about it for too long, lest he
look elsewhere. Ntonya begged them to change their minds. She was too
young, she pleaded. She didn't want to leave. But it was to no avail.
Her parents sat her down and spelled it out for her: the weather had
changed and taken everything from them. There was not enough food to go
around. They couldn't afford another mouth at the table.
That night she lay down in bed for the first time with the man she had
never seen before and followed the instructions of her aunt, who had
coached her on the important matter of sex. Ten months later, she gave
birth to their first daughter...
Around 1.5 million girls in Malawi are at risk of getting married
because of climate change. That's a huge number...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-generation-of-child-brides-in-africa
The *Federal Energy Regulatory Commission* (*FERC*)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission>is
the United States federal agency that regulates the transmission and
wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce and
regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce.
FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines,
natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals,
in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects.
FERC is composed of five commissioners who are nominated by the U.S.
President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. There may be no more than
three commissioners of one political party serving on the commission at
any given time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission
-
*NATURAL GAS*
*The East Coast's pipeline wars: A cheat sheet
<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067235>*
Ellen M. Gilmer, Jenny Mandel and Saqib Rahim, E&E News reporters
Energywire: Monday, November 27, 2017
The expansion of natural gas infrastructure along the East Coast has
created a seemingly endless queue of new pipeline battles involving
landowners, environmentalists, states and the federal government...
Here's a breakdown of some of the most interesting projects to help you
avoid getting your wires - er, pipelines - crossed.
*Constitution*
*Length:* 126 miles
*Route:* Northeast Pennsylvania to central New York
*Status:* Company wants FERC to waive a state-issued water permit
The fate of this project might not just be a matter of laws and
regulations; it may also be a battle of political wills. Democratic Gov.
Andrew Cuomo of New York has held up a number of high-profile gas
projects, including the Constitution pipeline. For its part, Williams
Cos. Inc., the lead sponsor of the project, is banking on favorable
treatment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
It all began early last year, when New York regulators denied
Constitution a water permit required by the Clean Water Act. Williams
challenged that decision in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The
court let New York's decision stand, but it declined to rule on a
critical issue Williams had asked about: whether New York had ceded that
authority to the feds by taking too long to review the project.
Now Williams is asking FERC to find "waiver" so that it can start
construction on the nearly $700 million project. CEO Alan Armstrong has
said the company is pressing FERC and the Trump administration to
overrule New York, and lobbying records confirm that representatives for
Williams have held meetings with the White House and federal agencies.
For now, Williams doesn't see the pipeline going online before 2019.
"Plenty of fight left in this dog, and I think we're well-positioned for
it," Armstrong told analysts this month. "But we've got - we will have a
fight on our hands, I suspect."
*Northern Access*
*Length:* 99 miles and associated infrastructure
*Route:* Northwest Pennsylvania to western New York
*Status:* Company appealing New York permit denial at 2nd Circuit, at
FERC and in state court
National Fuel Gas Co., the lead sponsor of the Northern Access project,
launched a bevy of legal challenges after New York regulators denied its
water permit this year. But even the company's president and CEO, Ronald
Tanski, has conceded that "it's anyone's guess when we might get an answer."
The roughly half-billion-dollar project would beef up the pipelines and
other infrastructure that send gas across the Pennsylvania border into
the Buffalo area. It had approvals from FERC and Pennsylvania
regulators, but the April decision by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation left it one permit shy.
National Fuel Gas is challenging New York's denial in the 2nd Circuit,
and it's also asking FERC to declare state authority "waived." But as
Tanski has acknowledged to investors, some of the pivotal legal
questions are getting worked out in other cases, such as the Valley
Lateral project in New York. Northern Access has no official service date...
*Valley Lateral*
*Length:* 7.8 miles
*Route:* Connects Millennium Pipeline Co.'s main line to a power plant
in Orange County, N.Y.
*Status:* Construction halted pending arguments at 2nd Circuit
What could have been a routine approval for a $39 million fuel line to a
power plant has evolved into a high-stakes case with a federalist twist.
The brouhaha began in August, when the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation denied a water permit that Millennium had to
get under the Clean Water Act. Millennium protested to FERC, saying New
York had taken longer to reach that decision than the statute allowed: a
year.
FERC agreed, saying New York had waived its authority to do the review
and that Millennium could go ahead.
Not so fast, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
New York has argued to the federal court that it was within its one-year
period when it denied Valley Lateral in August. It simply disagrees with
the company on when it got a complete application. And it thinks states'
interpretations on this issue trump Washington's.
Now New York, FERC and Millennium will meet in the 2nd Circuit to debate
this little piece of the Clean Water Act. They'll attempt to resolve a
question that will be significant for other interstate gas pipeline
projects.
*PennEast*
*Length:* 120 miles
*Route:* Northeast Pennsylvania to central New Jersey
*Status:* Awaiting final approval at FERC before reapplying to New Jersey
First proposed in 2014, the roughly billion-dollar project would connect
gas fields in the Marcellus Shale to New Jersey, a state that gets more
power from gas than any other fuel. But the project hit a speed bump in
June when state regulators under Republican Gov. Chris Christie blocked
the project's application for a water certificate required under federal
law.
PennEast says it's preparing to reapply, but the delay could be costly.
Democrat Phil Murphy won convincingly in this month's gubernatorial
election, and he enters office with Democratic majorities in the
statehouse and ambitious plans for renewable energy.
If Murphy sets up anti-pipeline leadership at the state Department of
Environmental Protection, New Jersey could become the next front in the
pipeline wars. But if his union supporters convince him otherwise,
Murphy could just as soon let the project proceed. He takes office in
January.
*Atlantic Sunrise*
*Length:* 183 miles and multiple expansions and upgrades
*Route:* Southern Pennsylvania to northern Pennsylvania and upgrades
across East Coast network
*Status:* Approved by FERC; under construction
Atlantic Sunrise encompasses new construction in Pennsylvania and an
array of upgrades along the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co.
LLC system that runs down the Eastern Seaboard to the Gulf Coast.
The $3 billion project has attracted the most pushback in Pennsylvania,
where landowners, environmentalists and a group of Catholic nuns have
led opposition. The Adorers of the Blood of Christ sued FERC over its
approval of the pipeline, arguing that routing the line across their
land violates their religious rights. A district court dismissed their
claim, and it's now on appeal.
Environmentalists have raised various other challenges to the project,
including whether Pennsylvania regulators properly considered its
impacts and whether FERC acted beyond its authority when it issued
orders related to the pipeline without a quorum.
Atlantic Sunrise opponents had brief success earlier this month,
securing a construction freeze. The victory was short-lived, however,
and the freeze lasted only two days. The other challenges are pending,
and additional lawsuits are expected...
*Nexus**
****Length:* 255 miles
*Route:* Eastern Ohio to southeastern Michigan
*Status:* Approved by FERC; under construction
The $2 billion Nexus pipeline in Ohio has been a hotbed of legal
challenges since before it was approved. Landowners filed a novel
lawsuit in May, arguing that FERC's practice of granting eminent domain
authority to pipeline developers is unconstitutional. That case is still
pending in federal court in Ohio.
Nexus has also spurred a challenge to a longtime FERC practice of
issuing "tolling orders" that extend the agency's deadline for
responding to rehearing requests. That lawsuit has been sidelined for
now, but environmentalists will likely raise the issue again...
*Rover*
*Length:* 713 miles
*Route:* From processing plants in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio
to delivery points in Ohio and Michigan
*Status:* Some segments in service, others under construction;
completion expected in early 2018
The $4.2 billion Rover project to move up to 3.25 billion cubic feet of
gas from Mid-Atlantic shale plays is being developed by Energy Transfer
Partners LP, the company behind the heavily protested Dakota Access oil
pipeline.
The project had problems with drilling fluid leaks and other
environmental issues in Ohio almost as soon as construction started this
spring, and the state of Ohio is suing Energy Transfer Partners on
charges that it violated state air and water protection laws. West
Virginia regulators also briefly stopped construction on the project,
and Energy Transfer Partners is operating under construction limitations
from FERC.
FERC also has an ongoing investigation into whether the company used
unapproved ingredients in its drilling fluid mix.
*Mountain Valley*
*Length:* 303 miles
*Route:* Northern West Virginia to southern Virginia
*Status:* Approved by FERC; state permits pending
The $3.5 billion Mountain Valley project is being developed by
Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp. and partners to carry shale gas from West
Virginia to markets in Virginia. The project has been controversial in
Virginia, with pushback from environmentalists and landowner groups, and
is the subject of a legal challenge that says the use of eminent domain
for the pipeline violates landowners' constitutional rights and the
Natural Gas Act.
The project is also notable for an unusual situation in West Virginia,
where developers first secured state water permits only to see them
withdrawn by the state Department of Environmental Protection in
response to charges that the state's review was inadequate. State
officials initially said they intended to review the permits but instead
opted to waive their right to regulate the project's water quality
impacts, a decision that shifts the responsibility onto the Army Corps
of Engineers.
*Atlantic Coast*
*Length:* 600 miles
*Route:* Northern West Virginia to eastern Virginia and North Carolina
*Status:* Approved by FERC; state permits pending
Atlantic Coast is a $5.1 billion project developed by four energy
companies - Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Piedmont Natural
Gas Co. Inc. and Southern Company Gas - to deliver Mid-Atlantic shale
gas to local markets in Virginia and North Carolina. It has faced strong
local opposition in both states and was a point of debate in a fierce
governor's race in Virginia. Democrat Ralph Northam, who largely dodged
taking a position on the project but once supported it, won that race...
*Sabal Trail*
*Length:* 515 miles
*Route:* Eastern Alabama to central Florida
*Status:* Partially in service; FERC is conducting supplemental review
Sabal Trail is most notable for sparking a legal battle that forced FERC
to take a closer look at the project's climate change impacts...
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067235
*Demystifying Climate Risk, Volume I:
<http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i>*
This book (196 pp.) is a distillation of the First Annual International
Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine, USA. It
is organized into three major themes, namely: environmental, health and
societal impacts; the special case of Africa; and advances in education.
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i
View Extract <http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64130>
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64130
This book is a distillation of the First Annual International Technical
Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine, USA. It is
organized into three major themes, namely: environmental, health and
societal impacts; the special case of Africa; and advances in education.
*Demystifying Climate Risk, Volume II:
<http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii>*
This book (306 pp.) is a distillation of the First Annual International
Technical Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine, USA. It
is organized into four major themes, namely: the Montreal Protocol;
industry and infrastructure concerns; sustainability and strategic
planning; and climate science and informing business risk.
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii
View Extract <http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64131>
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/64131
This book is a distillation of the First Annual International Technical
Workshop on Climate Risk held in 2016 in Wells, Maine, USA. It is
organized into four major themes, namely: the Montreal Protocol;
industry and infrastructure concerns; sustainability and strategic
planning; and climate science and informing business risk.
The premise of both books is that, long before the 2015 Paris Agreement,
many professionals from diverse fields were working to solve the
problems of human-caused climate change. The 1987 Montreal Protocol is
now in support of a key emission reduction goal of the Agreement. It was
time for the seasoned leaders who implement the Protocol, the world's
most successful treaty for atmospheric protection, to share their
knowledge and wisdom with the next generation before that expertise was
lost. The purpose of bringing these communities of practice together is
to leverage the many successes to date to inspire future innovations
through 'lessons learned'; ensure that new or updated regulations are
timely communicated and economically executed; and identify
opportunities for related sustainable development.
The titles, Demystifying Climate Risk, Volumes I and II, are available
through Amazon and other online retailers or through the publisher,
Cambridge Scholars, and their network of distributors including
Bertram, Gardners, Baker & Taylor, Ingram, YBP, Inspirees and MHM Limited.
The editor, Dr. LeBlanc, also serves as Adjunct Professor at the
University of New England on the Biddeford, Maine USA campus in the
Environmental Studies Department.
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-i
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/demystifying-climate-risk-volume-ii
*Should homeowners give in to climate change?
<https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/how-do-we-decide-when-give-in-climate-change>*
When deciding whether to rebuild homes destroyed by fire or floods, some
homeowners are throwing in the towel....
It's important that we recognize these losses for what they are,
especially in light of decisions that are made about what to do with
homes in low-lying, flood-prone areas that have been destroyed over the
course of this year in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico - or those houses
that were recently razed in wildfire zones in California and Oregon. How
do we make the decision not to rebuild a home or neighborhood?..
It's an intellectual and scientific question, but also one about ethics
and morality. Others questions should be: How comfortable are we in
putting first responders in harm's way to rescue people who refuse to
evacuate or insist upon rebuilding? Are we willing to ask some people to
give up their homes for the good of the community? How do we best
support those people who make this decision on their own or are forced
to? What is fair compensation for requiring people to leave their homes
due to disaster-avoidance?...
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/how-do-we-decide-when-give-in-climate-change
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22>
to this mailing. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20171129/5e8a9077/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list