[TheClimate.Vote] April 6, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Apr 6 10:29:39 EDT 2018
/April 6, 2018/
[updated chart of climate cases]
*Climate Change Litigation Databases <http://climatecasechart.com/>*
This site provides two databases of climate change case law.
*U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION
<http://climatecasechart.com/us-climate-change-litigation/>*
http://climatecasechart.com/us-climate-change-litigation/
*NON-U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION
<http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/>*
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/
Cases in the databases are organized by type of claim and are
searchable. In many cases, links are available to decisions, complaints,
and other case documents.
http://climatecasechart.com/
[Methane in the courts]
*Groups appeal court stay of BLM methane waste rule
<https://westernlaw.org/groups-appeal-court-stay-blm-methane-waste-rule/>*
Conservation groups today appealed a federal District Court judge in
Wyoming's stay of 2016 methane waste rule implementation. The 2016 rule
compels oil and gas companies operating on public lands to take
reasonable measures to prevent the waste of methane, the primary
ingredient of natural gas that, when wasted to the atmosphere, degrades
air quality and, as a greenhouse gas over 80 times more potent than
carbon dioxide, harms our climate.
The 2016 rule, having gone through a reasoned and informed process,
benefits public health, taxpayers, the climate, and air quality. Today's
decision, in acceding to the Trump administration's rollback of health
and environmental protections, places the interests of billion-dollar
corporations ahead of everyday Americans.
The BLM methane waste rule was developed and adopted to address:
*Waste: *According to Interior, in 2014, oil and gas companies
wasted more than 4 percent of the natural gas they produced on
federal lands, sufficient gas to supply nearly 1.5 million
households with gas for a year.
*Public health:* Methane released by the oil and gas industry comes
packaged with other toxic pollutants— benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene — and smog-forming volatile organic compounds.
*Climate: *Methane is a greenhouse gas 87 times more potent than
carbon dioxide during the time it remains in the atmosphere.
*Taxpayers:* The BLM methane waste rule would earn taxpayers about
$800 million in royalties on publicly owned methane resources over
the next decade. Since 1980, lax provisions have resulted in BLM
rubber-stamping industry requests to vent and flare natural gas and
to avoid paying royalties. The U.S. Government Accountability Office
estimates lost royalties at nearly $23 million annually under the
antiquated regime.
"The 2016 rule was, and remains, absolutely necessary to battle the
wasteful oil and gas practices on public lands," said Darin Schroeder,
associate attorney at Clean Air Task Force. "We will continue our
efforts to make sure that the 2016 rule is fully effective."
https://westernlaw.org/groups-appeal-court-stay-blm-methane-waste-rule/
[What the hell? Shell - knew. Now we can too]
*Internal Documents Shed New Light on Shell's Role in the Climate Crisis
<http://www.ciel.org/news/crackintheshell/>*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 2018
Washington, DC - CIEL's analysis of a massive new trove of Shell
internal documents unearthed by Dutch journalist Jelmer Mommers shows
the global oil giant understood and acted on climate science while
publicly sowing doubt as to its validity and fighting its regulation.
The analysis, A Crack in the Shell: New Documents Expose a Hidden
Climate History, details a troubling pattern in Shell's behavior: making
declarations about the dangers of climate change while working with
other companies to oppose climate action, including by spreading
misinformation, then leaving after the damage has already been done.
These new documents fill in missing pieces of a story that begins no
later than 1958 and spans decades, continents, and an array of
disciplines. They demonstrate that Shell had at its disposal both
profound scientific expertise in relevant disciplines and the resources
to deploy that expertise to profoundly shape long-term trajectories for
both the company itself and the world as a whole.
"With Shell facing litigation and investigation in a growing number of
jurisdictions, from US courts to human rights bodies in the Philippines,
these new documents come at a critical juncture," says Steven Feit, a
CIEL attorney and lead author of the report. A confidential 1988 report
called The Greenhouse Effect, a key document in the trove, not only
acknowledged the robustness of the scientific evidence of climate change
and Shell's own significant role in the problem, but noted that waiting
for full scientific certainty on climate change could mean needed action
would be too late.
- - - - - -
"Shell has flown below the radar in part because it has been talking a
big game on climate for a long time," says Feit. "But these documents
reveal a more complicated history: While Shell has been promising to
take action, it has always been deliberately perpetuating a carbon-based
energy mix. Shell's new Sky Scenario is more of the same: the model sets
out a vision to meet Paris goals, while the company acknowledges that it
has no intent to pursue that vision."
"This trove of documents is significant not just for what it contains,
but also for what it portends for future investigations," says report
co-author and CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "Information breeds new
information—names, dates, connections. Just as the disclosure of Exxon
documents has informed and fueled new investigations into that company's
conduct, these Shell documents herald a potential step change in the
speed and scale of future revelations. Those revelations didn't end with
ExxonMobil, and they're unlikely to end with Shell."
Read the report:
http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/A-Crack-in-the-Shell_April-2018.pdf
more at: http://www.ciel.org/news/crackintheshell/
*"However, by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be
too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even
to stabilize the situation." *(Link
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p4/a415539>
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p4/a415539
)
...
Our post with an index
http://climateinvestigations.org/shell-oil-climate-documents-revealed/
...
The whole collection is hosted on our site ClimateFiles
http://www.climatefiles.com/page/3/?s=Shell
...
DeSmogUK post
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/internal-shell-oil-climate-documents-revealed
...
Three US online stories so far:
Inside Climate News
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05042018/shell-knew-scientists-climate-change-risks-fossil-fuels-global-warming-company-documents-netherlands-lawsuits
...
ClimateWire
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078213
...
Climate Liability News
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/shell-knew-climate-change-liability/
...
more at: http://www.ciel.org/news/crackintheshell/
[Climate Liability News]
*What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/climate-change-oil-companies-knew-shell-exxon/>*
By Ucilia Wang
Here is a timeline that shows internal research and discussions by some
of the biggest oil companies over the past 40 years and how their public
statements and campaigns often included very different messages. It
begins to draw the picture of what the fossil fuel industry knew about
climate change and when and how it contrasted with their public stance:
*July 1977:*James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company's top
management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels was
causing climate change.
*May 1981:*In a paper written for Exxon's head of research, the company
scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by
3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in
the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the
first half of the 21st century.
*November 1982:*Exxon distributed a paper internally on climate change
that advised "major reductions in fossil fuel combustion" for limiting
global warming.
*June 1988:*James Hansen, a NASA scientist, testified during a
congressional hearing that human activities were causing global warming.
It was the first major public warning of a looming climate crisis.
*1988:*Shell prepared an internal report called "The Greenhouse Effect"
that analyzed the impacts of climate change. It noted that fossil fuel
burning was driving climate change and quantified the carbon emissions
from its products (oil, gas, coal) made up 4 percent of global emissions
in 1984.
*1989:*In a move to coordinate a public response to the growing
attention on climate change, a group of big businesses, including Exxon,
BP and Shell, formed theGlobal Climate Coalition
<https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition>. It set
out tocast doubt on climate science
<http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/heartland-institute/global-climate-coalition-draft-primer-for-ipcc-2nd-assessment/>and
lobby against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
*February 1995:*An internal report by Shell warned that fossil fuel
burning was the main source of manmade emissions that was driving global
warming, and this fact "could have major business implications for the
fossil fuel industry."
*1991:*A 30-minutevideo
<https://thecorrespondent.com/6286/if-shell-knew-climate-change-was-dire-25-years-ago-why-still-business-as-usual-today/692773774-4d15b476>produced
by Shellincluded <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo>dire
predictions and images of fires, floods and food shortages. A narrator
included this ominous warning: "Global warming is not yet certain, but
many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action
now is seen as the only safe insurance."
*1996:*Exxon solidified its public stance on dealing with climate change
when chief executive Lee Raymondwrote an article for a company
publication
<http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1996-exxon-lee-raymond-climate-change-dont-ignore-the-facts/>saying
that scientific evidence was "inconclusive" on whether humans were
contributing to climate change.
*1997:*Exxon took outan ad in the New York Times
<https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/exxon-mobil-lied-about-climate-change/>that
was titled, "Reset the Alarm," which said:"Let's face it: The science of
climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could
plunge economies into turmoil." It also read, "We still don't know what
role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming the planet."
*1998:*In a speech to employees, Lucio Noto, chief executive of Mobil
Oil (before its merger with Exxon) told employees who were apparently
were upset about "what they think is Mobil's negative attitude on the
Kyoto so-called climate agreement." His speech wascaptured on video
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/03/mobil-climate-change-lucio-noto/>.
He said while there's a connection between greenhouse gases and climate
change, "we are also not prepared to admit that the science is a closed
fact, and that we should take draconian steps tomorrow to reduce CO2
gases." He also said the company should try to reduce its operational
emissions as well as those produced by customers.
*1998:* Shell produced a document called theShell Internal TINA Group
Scenarios 1998-2020 Report
<http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html>,
which included modeling a future that included oil companies and
governments being held liable for climate impacts. Its scenario eerily
described the U.S. being hit with fierce storms in 2010, followed by
activist groups initiating legal liability cases. (In reality, the
biggest storm him the East Coast in 2012—Superstorm Sandy—and liability
cases began to stir after that.)
*2009:*In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Exxon acknowledged that humans were causing climate change.
*2013:*A study by Richard Heede published in the journal/Climatic
Change/showed that90 companies
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y>are
responsible for two-thirds of the carbon emissions since the start of
the industrial age in the mid-18th century.
*August 2017:*A Harvard study
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/08/23/exxon-climate-science-naomi-oreskes/>that
analyzed Exxon's internal papers and public statements and campaigns
showed the company misled the public about what it knew about the risk
of climate change. The peer-reviewed study concluded that Exxon
emphasized doubts about the scientific evidence that blamed fossil fuel
burning for global warming when communicating with the public while
acknowledging the issue more forthrightly in internal communications.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/climate-change-oil-companies-knew-shell-exxon/
[John Cook]
*American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate
consensus
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/05/american-conservatives-are-still-clueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus>*
Now there's a handbook for that
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/05/american-conservatives-are-still-clueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
[IEA = International Energy Agency]
*IEA accused of undermining global shift from fossil fuels
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-accused-of-undermining-global-shift-from-fossil-fuels>*
Highly critical study warns projections used by the organisation tasked
with leading the switch to clean energy remain skewed towards oil and
gas and may break climate targets of Paris agreement
The global shift from fossil fuels to renewables is being undermined by
the very organisation that ought to be leading the charge, according to
a scathing new critique of the InternationalEnergyAgency (IEA).
Governments across the world rely on IEA projections to set energy
policies, but the agency's figures - which are influenced by the oil
industry - are pushing them off track to reach the targets of theParis
climate agreement
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/paris-climate-agreement>, says
the report.
The study, released on Thursday by research and advocacy NGOOil
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/oil>Change International,
claims the agency's investment projections remain massively skewed
towards oil and gas, effectively encouraging governments to overshoot
emissions targets and worsen climate damage...
Under the most prominent and widely used of the IEA's pathways - the
"new policy scenario" - the world's carbon budget for 1.5C would be
exhausted by 2022, and for 2C by 2034, the report calculates. Even its
most ambitious outlook - the "sustainable development scenario" - would
bust the 2C budget by 2040, even though it assumes the deployment of as
yet untried to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere, it says.
"The IEA provides an energy roadmap that is supposed to lead us to
safety, but in fact it takes us over the cliff," says Greg Muttitt,
research director at Oil Change International. "Any government or
financial institution that uses these scenarios as a basis for
investments in oil and gas is getting seriously bad information. It's
shocking how far off the Paris agreement they are."...
more at:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-accused-of-undermining-global-shift-from-fossil-fuels
- - - - - -
[DeSmog]
*International Energy Agency 'Undermining Efforts on Climate Change'
through Scenarios Inconsistent with Paris Agreement
<https://www.desmog.uk/2018/04/04/international-energy-agency-undermining-efforts-climate-change-through-scenarios-inconsistent-paris-agreement>*
By Chloe Farand • Wednesday, April 4, 2018
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is "undermining efforts on climate
change" by guiding governments towards energy decisions that are
inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goals, new research suggests.
...
But according to Oil Change International's analysis, these scenarios
are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goals. The report highlights
two specific examples: the Sustainable Development Scenario and the New
Policies Scenario.
According to the research, the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario
would use up the world's carbon budget to limit global temperature rise
to 1.5 degrees by 2023 and exhaust the two degree carbon budget by 2040.
Similarly, Oil Change International claims that the IEA's most widely
promoted scenario, the New Policies Scenario, would burn enough fossil
fuels to use up the world's carbon budget even sooner - respectively
exhausting the two degrees target budget by 2034 and that for 1.5
degrees by 2022...
...
The "damaging" impact of the IEA's scenarios is exacerbated by the way
the organisation uses its far-reaching communication channels, the
report argues.
According to the analysis, the IEA devotes about 80 percent of its
communication efforts, including through its flagship annual publication
World Energy Outlook (WEO), to promote its business-as-usual New
Policies Scenarios.
Co-author Muttitt pointed to the extensive influence the fossil fuel
yields over the WEO.
According to the report, at least two of last year's WEO authors
<https://www.iea.org/media/about/Brochure_IEA_StaffonLoan_2015.pdf> were
on secondment from Shell with the oil company still paying their salaries.
Muttitt added that other people who had previously worked for oil
companies had been involved in writing the WEO but he was unable to
confirm whether they were on secondment...
https://www.desmog.uk/2018/04/04/international-energy-agency-undermining-efforts-climate-change-through-scenarios-inconsistent-paris-agreement
[higher is cooler]
*Increase of plant species on mountain tops is accelerating with global
warming <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180404133513.htm>*
Over the past 10 years, the number of plant species on European mountain
tops has increased by five-times more than during the period 1957-66.
Data on 302 European peaks covering 145 years shows that the
acceleration in the number of mountain-top species is unequivocally
linked to global warming.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180404133513.htm
[Gavin Schmidt video lectures - despite a head-cold]
*What Are Climate Models Good For?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C89_Cr-oVTM>*
University of California Television (UCTV)
Published on Apr 3, 2018
(Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) The earth's climate is dynamic and complex.
Large changes in climate are recorded in ice cores, ocean mud and over
the last two centuries, instrumental records. However, to understand the
large scale patterns in climate and their changes and drivers, climate
models are not only useful, but increasingly necessary to make skillful
predictions for the future. Though critically important, understanding
the role of climate models is often misunderstood or distorted. Climate
scientist Gavin Schmidt discusses how climate models are not only
useful, but increasingly necessary.
Recorded on 01/10/2018.
Series: "Bren School of Environmental Science & Management" [4/2018]
[Show ID: 33355]
/"That was probably one of the better layperson's talks I've watched in
a long time" - T.N./
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C89_Cr-oVTM
*This Day in Climate History - April 6, 2011
<http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/07/gop_bid_to_keep_epa_from_regulating_greenhouse_gases_fails/>
- from D.R. Tucker*
April 6, 2011: An effort by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and James
Inhofe (R-OK) to eliminate the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions fails in a 50-50 vote. Four Democratic senators support the
McConnell-Inhofe effort; only one Republican (Sen. Susan Collins of
Maine) opposes it.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/07/gop_bid_to_keep_epa_from_regulating_greenhouse_gases_fails/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** 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/20180406/3f723c8d/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list