Climate Science Denial Groups Offer to Hide Fossil Fuel Funding

Major Climate Science Denial Groups Offer to Hide Fossil Fuel Funding, Greenpeace Investigation Finds

By Graham Readfearn • Tuesday, December 8, 2015   DeSmogBlog 

 

An undercover investigation by environment group Greenpeace has found some of the world’s most vocal climate science denial groups were willing to accept cash from fossil fuel interests in return for writing articles and reports that reject the impacts of greenhouses gases.

Greenpeace operatives posing as representatives of coal and oil companies were told that while the reports could be produced, there were ways that the sources of funding could be hidden.

Academics affiliated with leading US academic institutions Princeton and Penn State universities are implicated in the Greenpeace research.

According to a report on the investigation at Greenpeace's EnergyDesk website, Princeton's Professor William Happer had revealed he had accepted cash from coal company Peabody Energy in return for providing testimony to US congress but had routed the cash through a climate denial group. Happer also offered his services but said that a new climate science denial group, CO2 Coalition, should be used to channel the funds.

Groups including the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Donors Trust are also alleged to have been complicit in providing “peer review” services for fossil fuel clients and, in the case of Donors Trust, in providing an untraceable route for the fossil fuel payments.

The story comes as Happer is preparing to give evidence to a congressional hearing of the Senate Subcomittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired by Republican and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. That hearing is scheduled for Tuesday December 8 and also calls fellow “sceptics” Dr John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology and conservative commentator Mark Steyn.

A DeSmogBlog investigation into Donors Trust and its partner group Donors Capital Fund found that between 2005 and 2012, some $479 million of income to the two groups was untraceable. Of the amounts that were traceable, DeSmog found that $7.65 million had come from the Knowledge and Progress Fund (KPF). 

On the KPF board are oil billionaire and major Republican benefactor Charles Koch, his wife Liz and son Charles Chase Koch. Richard Fink, a Koch company director and long-standing aide to Charles Koch, is also a KPF director.

The Greenpeace investigation raises questions about the use of the Donors funds in financing climate science denial groups.  Donors Trust, together with oil giant Exxon, have also funded the work of Harvard-Smithsonian affiliated researcher Dr Willie Soon, who claims carbon dioxide cannot change the climate.

Greenpeace also claims that CO2 Coalition board member William O'Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, had suggested in an email to Happer that Donors Trust be used as a route to conceal cash from a fictional Middle eastern oil and gas company.

The investigation also targeted Happer's work with the London-based contrarian group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded by former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson. Greenpeace wrote:

Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.

 

He added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

Asked for comment by Greenpeace, the GWPF said in a statement that it rejected Greenpeace's investigation, saying any claims it had offered to put a fossil fuel commission report through its own version of peer review were a “fabrication”.

Who's in charge here? BigOil and Rail lobbies skirt regulation

Congress extends deadline for railroads to install anti-derailment technology

The deadline was December 31st, but only 31 percent of locomotives have positive train control

By Andrew J . Hawkins     October 29, 2015  The Verge

Thanks to intense lobbying by the railroad industry, Congress approved a bill that would extend the deadline by at least three years for implementation of Positive Train Control, an automated braking technology that experts believe provides a needed check on human error and prevents deadly derailments.

Seven years ago, after a train collision killed 25 people in Los Angeles, Congress ordered railroads nationwide to install positive train control by the end of 2015. Since then, a number of derailments occurred that could have been avoided if the trains involved had the technology available. Experts estimate that the system could have prevented 145 rail accidents that killed 288 people and injured 6,575 since 1969. "But we can't let this drag on indefinitely."  But the railroad industry has been dragging its feet ever since Congress approved the mandate....   more here

Audit finds railroad safety lacking during high oil traffic

By MATT VOLZ     10/29/15    Fire Engineering

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana's oversight of railroad safety falls short at a time when volatile crude oil train traffic from the Bakken region, already high, is only expected to increase, a new audit found.

Montana has no active rail safety plan and employs only two inspectors to cover the vast state, the Montana Legislative Audit Division report released Wednesday said. In addition, there is a lack of statewide emergency planning and hazardous-material response capability should an oil spill occur, the report found.

That's a potentially precarious situation with a new crude oil transfer station in North Dakota coming online that should boost oil traffic crossing Montana from about 10 trains a week to up to 15 cars per week. One out of every five Montanans lives in an evacuation zone for an oil-train derailment, which is within a half-mile of a rail line, the report said.

Trains carrying Bakken crude have been involved in fiery derailments in six states in recent years. In 2013, a runaway train hauling crude from the Bakken derailed and exploded in downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.....    more here

How's this for a spill response plan??

Come on baby light my fire

Ned Rozell     10/29/15    Anchorage Press

On a clear day last spring, fire sizzled on water at Poker Flat Research Range in the Chatanika River valley.

There, scientists were spilling crude oil in a manmade water basin and torching it from above. A series of similar test burns were part of a team effort between university scientists and researchers with the oil and gas industry.

On that April day, an orange flame hissed on the surface of a body of water 300-feet square and six inches deep. Black smoke rose and drifted with the wind.

After a few minutes, the smoke faded from black to white to invisible. The fire burned itself out. An air horn sounded.....

.... Burning oil at the site of an ocean spill is not a new idea. Officials executed it at the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010. For varying reasons, that burn removed very little of the spilled oil. And even though the Poker Flat experiment was efficient (one expert on scene estimated that more than 90 percent of the 50 gallons was burned), no one there thought burning was the perfect answer.

Ian Buist of SL Ross Environmental Research of Ottawa, an expert on oil spill behavior and how to deal with it, said at Poker Flat that burning is not often feasible, especially if the response is not quick and oil has spread too far.  ....   more here

Are US Regulators Trying to Cover Up Influence Of Oil Lobbyists?

Are US Regulators Trying to Cover Up Influence Of Lobbyists On New Oil-By-Rail Regulations?

By Mike Gaworecki • Sunday, August 9, 2015     DeSmogBlog 

 

It’s no secret that the oil and rail industries lobbied the Obama Administration heavily during the creation of new oil-by-rail regulations released this past May, with lobbyists reportedly not even taking a break the day after a major oil train accident.

But just how much influence did lobbyists actually have in the drafting of the regulations?

Environmentalists who criticize the new rules as far too weak to stop business-as-usual — which has already resulted in five oil train explosions so far this year — are endeavoring to find out by submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence between lobbyists and five federal agencies within the US Department of Transportation that worked on the oil train safety rules.

So far, they say, they’ve been stonewalled by the Obama Administration.

The FOIA requests were originally filed in January by La Crosse, WI’s Citizens Acting for Rail Safety, Communities for a Better Environment, Albany, NY’s Ezra Prentice Homes Tenants Association and ForestEthics. The rules came out on May 1.

The groups were seeking all records of communications exchanged between lobbyists and staff at the Federal Railroad Administration, the Surface Transportation Board, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation since January 1, 2012.

Some 97 individual lobbyists were named in the requests, among them representatives from trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of American Railroads as well as oil and rail companies including Chevron, Tesoro, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF).

Six former members of the US Congress, including Trent Lott, Vin Weber, John Breaux, Steve LaTourette, Max Sandlin and Bill Lipinski, are also among the lobbyists named in the requests.

Under FOIA regulations, the federal agencies had a deadline of 30 days to respond, with an optional ten-day extension. Yet only two agencies have responded so far, the Surface Transportation Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — both of which are advisory bodies, as opposed to the regulatory agencies that are tasked with actually writing the rules.

“Can’t think of another reason why they wouldn’t take common-sense, immediate measures”

ForestEthics filed appeals with the remaining three agencies in March, well after they'd already missed the deadline. On May 19, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation’s general council granted the appeal and ordered the agency’s FOIA official to schedule the release of the documents. But two months later, no documents have been released.

The acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration granted another of the appeals on July 27, but no timeline for the release of those documents has been proposed.

DeSmog has previously uncovered White House meeting logs that show the oil and rail industries had privileged access to key administration personnel.   ~continued below~

Oil Industry's devastating alternative to the Clean Power Plan

The Oil Industry's devastating alternative to the Clean Power Plan

Nick Abraham editor Oil Check Northwest 
 
August 6th - Earlier this week, President Obama announced its long awaited Clean Power Plan, and the new rules were met with plenty of fanfare from all of us that want clean air to breathe and a healthy climate to live in.

Unsurprisingly, oil and coal companies were not as pleased. They’ve organized an army of front groups, pseudo-think tanks and bought off organizations to attack and cripple the plan.

Locally, “astro-turf” groups like Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy and the Washington Climate Collaborative are not just attacking action like the Clean Power Plan. They have a widespread agenda to prevent new environmental protections and undercut the Northwest’s progress.

They’ve laid out an alternative to a clean energy future, a Dirty Power Plan, for the Northwest. You won’t see them announcing it from podiums or siting down with Katie Couric to talk it over. But make no mistake the fossil fuel industry has a plan for our corner of the world.

1. Sinking Clean Fuels

No surprise here. With a virtual monopoly on what we can fuel up with, oil companies are fighting desperately to prevent either state from enacting a clean fuels program. Despite putting $2 million into Oregon campaigns in 2014 clean fuels prevailed in a landmark victory this past session in Oregon. The legislature mandated that 10% of fuels in the state must come from renewable sources. Not one’s to bow out gracefully,oil companies have put forth 3 different ballot measures for 2016 that would repeal or weaken clean fuels.

In Washington, legislators who received millions from oil companies, almost completely derailed compromise on a new transportation package by trying to preemptively block clean fuels. Senate leaders added a poison pill to the transportation package that said if Governor Inslee implemented clean fuels through executive order all alternative transportation funding would move to road construction. In an effort to keep our state moving (literally), the Governor begrudgingly accepted the deal. Chalk one up for the oil companies.

2. Pipelines Trains and Terminals

The Northwest stands directly between Asian markets and major fossil fuel deposits in Canada and the interior Western US. The fastest, cheapest route to getting their coal, oil and natural gas to export is through our backyard, and that’s exactly what their Dirty Power Plan would propose.
Here’s what that would look like:

- Coal terminals North of Bellingham and Longview WA with over 90 million metric tons of coal total

- Expanded Bakken crude oil refining in Ferndale, Anacortes, Tacoma, Hoquiam, and Vancouver WA as well as Clatskanie OR could move over 1 million barrels/day through our region. That’s 14 oil trains a day

- Natural gas: 140 miles of new pipeline from Sumas WA to Warrenton OR cutting through major population centers along the I-5 corridor as well as a 230 mile line from Malin to Coos Bay OR

3. Keeping Pollution Free

This year, both Oregon and Washington had bills in the legislature to put a price on pollution. In Oregon bill 3470 would have given the state the authority to regulate pollutants much the same way as California currently does, through a carbon cap and trade system. A second bill (3250), would have charged polluters a fee and given that money back to each Oregonian with a dividend check, very similar to Alaska's program that charges oil companies a royalty and gives checks to every resident. (If you've ever had a friend from Alaska they cannot shut up about their "free" check every year)

Unfortunately both bills didn’t make it out of session, as a transportation fight took out all the air in the legislature. Much in the same was as Washington; a provision was added to the transportation package that would cut clean fuels in exchange for a deal. Only this time oil companies were caught red handed writing the bill themselves. After a drawn out battle, the package was killed and clean fuels lived on to fight an other day.

In Washington Governor Inslee laid out a proposal to cut emissions from the state’s largest industrial polluters, a plan that would have given the billions raised to badly need transportation improvements and education funding that’s still in a $3.5 billion hole. This bill, similar to Oregon, was killed after a barrage of attacks from oil-backed legislators.

Not to be out maneuvered, in late July, Governor Inslee announced that the state would be regulating emissions through the Department of Ecology’s mandate. As impressive as this plan is, it still needs backup to be completely effective. To truly have a strong impact, the law will need a way to enforce the regulations. Many predict that a price on pollution will be put on the ballot in 2016 and this would give the Governor’s proposal some much needed teeth.

This week’s Clean Power Plan announcement was a powerful step forward; we couldn’t be happier to see a tough but achievable strategy to cut emissions. But lets not forget that fossil fuel companies have a plan of their own. And the Dirty Power Plan does not paint a bright future for the Northwest.

Nick Abraham editor Oil Check Northwest
nick@oilchecknw.com 

Fun and Games Friday: Ignoring public safety (for a small fee)

Using bad tank cars? Then pay a fee, Brown proposes 

By Rick Rouan    The Columbus Dispatch  •  June 30, 2015 

[Ed. note: this "pay a pittance" bill was sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Mark Warner, D-Va. who continue to promote it.]

Sen. Sherrod Brown wants shippers using tank cars that have been linked to fiery train derailments to pay fees that would be used to reroute train tracks, train first responders and clean up spills.

Brown has proposed fees that start at $175 per car for those using the DOT-11, a tank car that federal regulators have warned hazardous-material shippers against using.

The fees would pay to clean up hazardous-material spills, to move tracks that handle large volumes of hazardous material and to hire more railroad inspectors. Brown’s bill earmarks about $45 million over three years to train first responders near rail lines that carry large quantities of hazardous material.

Earlier this year, federal regulators tightened rules on newly manufactured tank cars but did not require shippers to immediately remove the old cars.

“(The rule) probably didn’t go far enough,” Brown said on Tuesday at the site of a 2012 derailment and explosion near the state fairgrounds. “If it’s a threat to public safety, they probably need to be off the rails.”

The federal rule will phase out or require retrofitting of thousands of the oldest tank cars that carry crude oil by 2018. Another wave of the oil-carrying tankers would have to change by 2020.

Some of the tank cars that aren’t carrying crude oil would not be replaced or retrofitted until 2025.

Brown’s proposal calls for a tax credit for companies that upgrade their tank cars to the new federal standard in the next three years.

Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers trade association, said his organization would oppose the fee structure Brown proposed.....  more here

The Making of an Energy Ghetto  

Utilities efforts to turn back the clean-energy revolution would block low-income communities from realizing the benefits

Earthtalk       Denise Fairchild      07/01/2015

The clean-energy revolution is underway, and so is the war against it. As with every other major economic transition, this battle will have winners and losers. For low-income communities of color, the stakes are especially high: Will they reap the benefits of the emerging clean-energy economy or will they be locked into energy ghettos?

 

Here’s the context. Renewable energy — solar and wind — is quickly replacing fossil fuels as the preferred energy source. It is now cheaper than coal and most other fossil fuels. Innovative financing mechanisms have eliminated out-of-pocket costs for installing these technologies, enabling homeowners to save and even earn money from energy production. For example, “net metering” lets solar-powered households sell their surplus energy back to the grid for a profit — sending their electric meters spinning counterclockwise.

The utility sector is not happy with these developments, and it is fighting back. A recent Washington Post article cites utilities’ efforts to influence legislators, state public service commissions and — of particular concern — minority organizations. They want to eliminate net metering and assess households with solar-power systems a monthly surcharge to offset the utilities’ sunk capital investments and maintenance costs. And they have convinced some minority organizations that, without the surcharge, the poor will pay more through rate hikes as clean-energy and net-metering schemes benefit only well-to-do families.

This is a specious argument with potentially dangerous and unfortunate consequences, particularly for low-income residents. Eliminating net metering or placing a surcharge on households that migrate off the grid would foster a two-tiered energy society. These steps would render solar power unaffordable for low-income households, locking in historical racial and class hierarchies. The problems are analogous to the forces that created and sustained central-city ghettos.....   more here

 

It’s Official: New York State Bans Fracking

It’s Official: New York Bans Fracking

Eco Watch    Cole Mellino       June 29, 2015

See additional coverage in Bloomberg and the FuelFix.    h/t Roger Straw

New York State officially banned fracking today by issuing its formal Findings Statement, which completed the state’s seven-year review of fracking.

“After years of exhaustive research and examination of the science and facts, prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative,” said New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens in a statement. “High-volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. This decision is consistent with DEC’s mission to conserve, improve and protect our state’s natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state.”

Today, representatives of New Yorkers Against Fracking, Frack Action and the Sierra Club delivered this giant “Thank You” scroll signed by hundreds of state residents to the 2nd floor of the Capitol Executive Chamber.

The Findings Statement concludes that “there are no feasible or prudent alternatives that adequately avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and address risks to public health from this activity.” Two groups heavily involved in the campaign, New Yorkers Against Fracking and Americans Against Fracking, praised the decision.

Mark Ruffalo, an advisory board member of Americans Against Fracking, worked diligently to ban fracking in his home state and recently made an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to encourage the U.S. to go 100 percent renewable by 2050. In a statement on the finalization of New York’s ban on fracking, Ruffalo said:

I applaud the Cuomo Administration for protecting the public health and safety of New Yorkers by finalizing the ban on high volume fracking. Governor Cuomo has set a precedent for the nation by carefully considering the science, which shows a range of public health and environmental harms, and doing what’s best for the people, not the special interests of Big Oil and Gas. Already, other states and countries are following New York’s lead, with prohibitions including Maryland, Scotland, Wales and just today a crucial county in England. Along with many New Yorkers, I look forward to working on advancing renewable energy and efficiency, showing the world that a cleaner, healthier, renewable energy future is possible. Today I’m proud and thankful to be a New Yorker.

Industry groups have, of course, threatened to sue but the attorneys at Earthjustice are confident that the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s exhaustive review “will withstand legal challenge” and Earthjustice pledges “to stand alongside the state in any legal challenge.”

“Today, nearly a year to the day after communities won the right to ban fracking, New York’s historic statewide ban on fracking is now the law of the land,” says Earthjustice Managing Attorney Deborah Goldberg, who represented the town of Dryden, New York, which won its precedent-setting fracking ban case one year ago tomorrow. “We salute Governor Andrew Cuomo’s refusal to bow to industry pressure. He had the courage to do what no other state or federal leader has had the courage to do: let the available scientific evidence dictate whether fracking should proceed in New York.”

New York now joins Vermont in outlawing the practice altogether, which has been banned in the Green Mountain state since 2012. As Ruffalo mentioned, this spring Maryland approved a moratorium on fracking in the state until October 2017. Scotland and Wales have also instituted moratoriums. And today a county in England rejected applications for fracking permits, which the Wall Street Journal says “effectively extends the moratorium on fracking in the U.K.” Meanwhile, Texas and Oklahoma both passed legislation this spring, barring local municipalities from instituting fracking bans.

“New Yorkers can celebrate the fact that we won’t be subjected to the toxic pollution and health risks fracking inevitably brings,” said Alex Beauchamp, northeast region director for Food & Water Watch. “By banning fracking, Governor Cuomo stood up to the oil and gas industry, and in so doing became a national leader on health and the environment. He set a standard for human health and safety that President Obama and other state leaders should be striving for.”

Opinion: The Takeover of Grays Harbor by the Fossil Fuel Industry

 

 Grays Harbor dredging project moving forward this year

Opinion:  Dredging, Again?

Regarding the 3 oil terminals proposed for Grays Harbor--Imperium, Westway, U.S Development, --we cannot name the many deadly risks to The Quinault Nation, nor to all of the people, places and waters of Grays Harbor County, the entire West Coast. Even with overwhelming numbers of public comments made to our Dept. of Ecology, to Governor Inslee, to The City of Hoquiam--comments numbering 20,000 and more--naming studies, revealing all of the risks: economic, health, safety, environmental, et al----still our state Dept. of Ecology full steams ahead, working at compliance for these companies to bring these billions of gallons of crude oil to our Harbor by mile long trains. Why is that? Why does our Governor and The Dept. of Ecology, with our legislature, forge ahead, working for the oil industry--knowing that disaster is imminent? 

These Oil Terminal proposals will do nothing for the people, providing a mere hand full of local jobs, if that. These 3 oil terminals stand alone, posing more untold threats than any previous exercise in greed seen in our lifetime here on the Harbor--in this Evergreen State. As if oil terminals weren't enough to destroy marine resources, we now have another dredging! Dredging, again? Really?

Directly related to these proposed terminals, is the insidious plan by Gary Nelson, Port CEO of Grays Harbor, Patty Murray, U.S Senator and, The Army Corps of Engineers--a 3rd dredging of Grays Harbor is imminent and approved through a collusion with the U. S. Government. We can only presume their goal being deeper drafting for oil related barges and tankers? Although not stated as such! 

Seriously--this is being done without a Marine Resource Study, or consideration of risks? Ultimately these risks include damages to crab nurseries, fish & shell fish, loss of beds for oyster growers. Testimony to this affect has been given and noted--not heeded. No consideration for the untold damage dredging will cause--to all marine life. Nor noting the effects of the last dredging and subsequent loss of oyster beds by local growers. That while knowing 33% of Grays Harbor's economy is directly related to the fishing and shell fish industry. 

According to an article in Grays Harbor County's " East County News," June 2nd, 2015--the dredging is a go. Even though The Washington State Crab Fishers are opposed, along with The Quinaults, as well as a coalition of groups looking out for the welfare of Grays Harbor. All are opposed for good reason. The purpose of the dredging is for deeper drafting ships. We can only conclude this to mean the oil tankers and oil barges--the current depth of the harbor seems to be working fine for current shipping traffic. 

Obviously oil terminals, crude oil by rail, another dredging at The port of Grays Harbor have been in the planning stages for quite some time--long before the citizenry knew what was coming down the tracks. Long before the citizenry knew that neither our port, nor our government have the citizens' interests or well being at heart. This is an inequitable, true power struggle between "what is good for people" vs. greed by government/private industry. Everyone, each of us, need to apprise ourselves of this life changing event called "The Takeover of Grays Harbor and The State of Washington by the fossil fuel/ oil industry." 

If all oil related proposals for oil terminals and oil transportation become a reality, Washington State will be receiving a staggering 1/2 of all U.S oil produced. Yes-1/2 of all U.S oil  through our state. Think about it. Essentially putting us in harms way for private greed. Will that leave room for any other commodities on the rails or at our Ports?

As if that's not enough-that's not all! Now...a rather questionable Oil Refinery is recently proposed for Longview, located on the Columbia River. Another front in this struggle. Doesn't this plan fly in the face of all the efforts to "Save our Salmon"?  A glaring paradox in the making...that's another article...another day.    

Carol Seaman

Chehalis River