Fossil fuel divestment is rational, says former Shell chairman
Damian Carrington, The Guardian
The former chairman of Shell has said that investors moving their money out of fossil fuel companies is a rational response to the industry’s “distressing” lack of progress on climate change.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, who spent almost four decades at Shell and rose to be its chairman, also said the big oil and gas companies had been calling for a price to be put on CO2 emissions for 15 years but had done little to make it happen.
His striking remarks are the most supportive of divestment made by any senior figure in the fossil fuel business. They will also be chastening for Shell. The company is currently positioning itself to be part of the solution to climate change rather than part of the problem, but faces criticism of its Arctic and tar sands operations…
No ‘slowdown’ in global surface temperatures after all, study finds
Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief
A new paper published today says the much-discussed "slowdown" in warming at Earth’s surface may not exist after all.
The study, published in the journal Science, says it is likely to be largely a figment of the way temperature records have been pieced together over time.
Scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reanalysed temperature records and concluded that surface warming over the past 15 years is higher than reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body set up to assess global warming. Temperatures are rising at least as fast as they were in the second half of the 20th century, say the authors.
Given the interest in the topic, this new finding is likely to generate headlines. But it’s probably not the last word on this complex topic, scientists tell Carbon Brief…
Climate Deal Badly Needs a Big Stick
Eduardo Porter, New York Times
According to calculations by William Nordhaus, an expert on the economics of climate change at Yale, the United States, on net, would gain $8 billion a year by benefiting from everybody else’s efforts to slow down the Earth’s warming without having to exert any effort itself.
But if the other advanced nations had a stick — a tariff of 4 percent on the imports from countries not in the “climate club” — the cost-benefit calculation for the United States would flip. Not participating in the club would cost Americans $44 billion a year.
This sort of approach offers perhaps the best chance of preventing a climatic upheaval.
In an article published in April in The American Economic Review, Professor Nordhaus proposed just such a climate club, in which countries committed to reducing carbon emissions would impose a uniform tariff on imports from nonmembers…
Fracking not a ‘widespread risk’ to drinking water: U.S. EPA
Valerie Volcovici, Timothy Gardner, Yeganeh Torbati, Reuters
Fracking for shale oil and gas has not led to widespread pollution of drinking water, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency draft report said on Thursday, although it warned some drilling activities could potentially cause health risks.
The study, requested by Congress and five years in the making, said fracking could contaminate drinking water under certain conditions, such as when fluids used in the process leaked into the water table.
The EPA said it found isolated cases of water contamination, but "the number of identified cases … was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
"We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," the study said…
Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Reuters the report was the first time the EPA acknowledged the potential to poison drinking water.
"There are still significant gaps in the scientific understanding of fracking," Mall said in a statement. "This study is site-specific and limited, which makes it impossible to fully understand all the risks at this time."…
After Water
Susie Cagle, Long Reads
The sun was going down in East Porterville, California, diffusing gold through a thick and creamy fog, as Donna Johnson pulled into the parking lot in front of the Family Dollar.
Since the valley started running dry, this has become Johnson’s favorite store. The responsibilities were getting overwhelming for the 70-year-old: doctors visits and scans for a shoulder she injured while lifting too-heavy cases of water; a trip to the mechanic to fix the truck door busted by an overeager film crew; a stop at the bank to deposit another generous check that’s still not enough to cover the costs of everything she gives away; a million other small tasks and expenses. But at the Family Dollar she was singularly focused, in her element…
Uganda: Oil brings quick cash, dashed hopes
May Jeong, AlJazeera
After the discovery of commercially viable oil reserves in 2006, companies including London-based Tullow, the French Total and the Chinese government-run CNOOC began drilling exploratory wells in the Lake Albert region. By 2009, the region’s reserves were estimated at 6.5 billion oil barrels. According to the World Bank, that would be enough to potentially remake Uganda, where the gross domestic product per capita was roughly $572 in 2013, into a middle-income country within 25 years.
Villagers around Lake Albert had high hopes for how oil would transform their region. Companies pledged new roads, schools and health clinics. But nearly a decade after the discovery of oil, little of that promised infrastructure has been built. Meanwhile, exploratory drilling has ruined crops and killed off fish, eroding people’s livelihoods. Oil companies have made cash payouts to affected families, but that money has sometimes increased tensions among family members and torn through the social fabric of villages.
“The influence of oil is further disenfranchising communities in the region,” said Kathleen Brophy, a program officer with Transparency International, an anti-corruption nonprofit. “It is introducing new dynamics of poverty.”…
It’s Raining Nitrogen In A Colorado Park. Farmers Can Help Make It Stop
Luke Runyon and Stephanie Paige Ogburn, NPR
It’s May in Rocky Mountain National Park, but on a mountainside 10,829 feet above sea level, snow is falling. It’s pelting Jim Cheatham, a biologist with the National Park Service. Shrugging off the cold, Cheatham seizes a teachable moment. This snow, he says, holds more than just water.
"Chances are it’s carrying the excess nitrogen we’re talking about," says Cheatham….
As Cheatham explains, it’s not that nitrogen is bad in and of itself. It’s that there’s too much of it in the park. Think about putting fertilizer, which is basically nitrogen, on your lawn or garden, he said.v "What if you applied that fertilizer — and that’s exactly what it is — at that rate — 15 times what’s on the label," he says. "Weird things are going to happen."…
California lawmakers boost climate change bills
Alexei Koseff and Jeremy B. White, The Sacramento Bee
Continuing the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change, California lawmakers approved expansive legislation Wednesday that will require ambitious new renewable energy and pollution standards over the coming decades.
In the Senate, the effort was led by President Pro Tem Kevin de León and fellow Democrats, who touted the economic benefits of building a green economy.
“This package of bills will put California on a pathway to sustainable economic growth,” de León said at a news conference following the vote, “protecting the health of our communities and the integrity of our environment, while also spreading a wave of innovation in our energy and transportation sectors.”…
London Assembly Supports Proposal To Make London A National Park City
Matt Brown, The Londonist
Did you know that nearly half of London is green space? The city might be home to 8 million people, but it’s also richly blessed with plants and wildlife. London has so much rus in urbe that one group has campaigned to designate the city as the Greater London National Park, which would make it the first urban realm to take on that status. This morning, the London Assembly unanimously agreed in principle to support the proposal. The motion (PDF), proposed by Jenny Jones AM and seconded by Darren Johnson AM, pledges to “support the organisation in developing its vision, in particular by setting out how the Greater London Authority and the wider GLA Group could contribute towards its aims”. This political consensus is a great fillip for the project, and the first step to having a grass-root citizen-led National Park City legitimately recognised…
Paris climate pledges ‘will only delay dangerous warming by two years’
Arthur Neslen and Karl Mathiesen, The Guardian
Pledges made by countries to cut their carbon emissions ahead of a crunch climate summit in Paris later this year will delay the world passing the threshold for dangerous global warming by just two years, according to a new analysis.
The research, led by a former lead author on the UN’s climate science panel, found that the submissions so far by 36 countries to the UN would likely delay the world passing the threshold until 2038, rather than 2036 without the carbon cuts…
What game are oil majors playing on climate change?
Christine Ottery, Greenpeace Energy Desk
It seems like a surprising, even commendable thing, that European oil giants have said they want to help draft global carbon pricing policy. The group comprises of BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Statoil, Eni and the BG Group.
They announced this move in the FT in the same week as OPEC meets in Vienna to discuss increasing output and amid continuing speculation about the low, volatile oil price.
It is the first time that oil majors have banded together and come out so strongly in support of the international climate negotiations – which makes them appear concerned and rational, acknowledging that climate change is a situation worth acting on.
It’s not the first time that oil companies have circled around and sought to influence world climate politics, however…
World Bank Chooses Wrong Indicator
Nick Galasso, Inequality.org
The World Bank has chosen an indicator of shared prosperity that’s inadequate and presents a distorted view of progress. According to the Bank’s indicator, countries where the poorest forty percent are faring better than the country average are considered to be experiencing shared prosperity. Yet, comparing the poorest to the average masks whether income and wealth are concentrating among the very rich at the top. Given what we know about the dangers of extreme inequality, the Bank’s indicator is not only misleading but irresponsible.
Extreme income and wealth concentration among the rich undermines poverty reduction, and therefore impedes shared prosperity. Other threats to shared prosperity from extreme inequality include weaker economic growth, and diminished opportunities for poor kids to build better lives than their parents.
Given the threat posed by extreme inequality, shared prosperity should be assessed by how the poorest are faring compared to the richest…
