By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions? 

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Global investor touts methane opportunity with oil & gas industry
Click To Tweet

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions? 

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Global investor touts methane opportunity with oil & gas industry
Click To Tweet

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

As an individual working and studying in the interior United States, I have always been passionate about the assessment and quality of rivers, from the Snake River in Wyoming to the Schuylkill in Pennsylvania. Using the geography of interior waterways, I have worked as an environmental educator and taught students about watersheds and the importance of healthy water resources considering the growing demands of agriculture, industry and urban centers. And yet, there has been no river more powerful than the ...

Read The Full Story

The post The History of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion: An Intern’s Perspective appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As an individual working and studying in the interior United States, I have always been passionate about the assessment and quality of rivers, from the Snake River in Wyoming to the Schuylkill in Pennsylvania. Using the geography of interior waterways, I have worked as an environmental educator and taught students about watersheds and the importance of healthy water resources considering the growing demands of agriculture, industry and urban centers. And yet, there has been no river more powerful than the ...

Read The Full Story

The post The History of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion: An Intern’s Perspective appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As an individual working and studying in the interior United States, I have always been passionate about the assessment and quality of rivers, from the Snake River in Wyoming to the Schuylkill in Pennsylvania. Using the geography of interior waterways, I have worked as an environmental educator and taught students about watersheds and the importance of healthy water resources considering the growing demands of agriculture, industry and urban centers. And yet, there has been no river more powerful than the ...

Read The Full Story

The post The History of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion: An Intern’s Perspective appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4.

Written by Molly Rauch

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially suspended vital air pollution safeguards that protect our children from dangerous methane, benzene, and other toxic, carcinogenic air pollutants. Under the direction of Administrator Scott Pruitt, the EPA issued an order for a two-year delay on methane pollutions standards, and we have a limited time to fight back.

This reckless decision puts our children in danger, and EPA knows it—the agency even admitted it.

The official notice from the EPA about the delay says: “EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children… Any impacts on children’s health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited.”

This is unacceptable to moms and dads everywhere—there is no amount of time that it’s okay for our children to be exposed to dangerous air pollution from the oil and gas industry. The attitude that two years of exposure to harmful pollution is tolerable is a cynical giveaway to the oil and gas industry, which doesn’t want to make the effort to protect our children from dangerous pollution.

Now, we have the opportunity to speak up and formally comment on the EPA’s two-year delay. We’ll have moms on the ground in DC on Monday testifying in person at a public hearing on this issue. But we also need your help to flood the electronic docket with written comments. We need to make one thing clear: We will not stand for any delay in the reduction of these dangerous air pollutants. Make your voice heard HERE.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that plays a major role in fueling global climate change, and it’s relatively easy for the oil and gas industry to detect and repair methane leaks. And when they fix methane leaks, they also slash emissions of carcinogenic benzene, protecting nearby communities. But industry doesn’t want to make the effort—and apparently EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt thinks that’s just fine.

Scott Pruitt’s decision to side with polluters instead of protecting the health of our children is unacceptable. No one voted to Make America Dirty Again.

We fought hard to get these protections finalized just last year. We can’t let him take them away. The EPA is currently accepting comments from Americans for a limited time. Make your voice heard HERE.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Ann Hayden

Cannon Michael is the president of Bowles Farming Company.

During times of water scarcity, like California’s recent drought, it’s tempting to take on a binary view of the world.  This was definitely the case with agriculture, which appeared to be at odds with everyone: farms vs. fish, farm vs. cities, farms vs. regulators.  As a dominant water user in the state, they were easy targets.

But when one digs deeper, it’s obvious that many in the agricultural community want to move beyond this debate and do things differently. Yes growing food and fiber takes water, but there are plenty of farmers laser-focused on improving efficiency, maximizing multi-benefit solutions and striking a balance between growing crops and preserving the environment.

I recently visited with Cannon Michael, president of Bowles Farming Company, which oversees an 11,000-acre farm near Los Banos in California’s San Joaquin Valley. He is the great, great, great grandson of Henry Miller, “the Cattle King of California,” so farming is in his blood. He has senior water rights, and while he still had to make difficult management decisions during the drought, he ended up with more water than many of his neighbors and found ways to share it, a tremendous display of collaboration in the farming community.

Now Cannon is working with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to create a plan to enhance agriculture and wildlife benefits on his property and serve as a model for others. Below, he shares his thoughts.

How @agleader is finding holistic solutions that work for agriculture and the environment, via…
Click To Tweet

Your family has a long and storied history in California agriculture. Did you always know you would follow the family tradition?

I’m the 6th generation of my family to work in California agriculture. But it wasn’t always the career path I was planning on. I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area and I often visited the farm as a young boy. I have vivid memories of driving out to the country, opening the car door and running for miles – the freedom was amazing. In high school I worked every summer on the farm and enjoyed learning to irrigate, drive tractors and the value of a hard day’s work. I graduated from UC Berkeley and started down a different career path, but eventually I found my way back to the country. Agriculture is in my blood, and I was destined to be a farmer.

Cannon manages an 11,000-acre farm near Los Banos in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

How have you adjusted to less water availability?

We were pretty proactive over a decade ago and installed drip irrigation. To be frank, this wasn’t done over water concerns alone; we saw it as an opportunity to increase yield and improve the quality of our products, especially tomatoes. During the recent drought, we were able to leverage drip irrigation and continue to grow our operations. It also opened up opportunities for us to strategically fallow some ground and transfer water to some of our neighbors who had no supply at all.

To what degree do sustainability and conservation factor in to the management decisions you make on the farm? What drives your conservation ethic?

Farmers inherently know what sustainability is. We must be sustainable if we want to continue to grow good products and stay in business. I don’t see any farmer intentionally wanting to do things that impact their workers, the surrounding environment that they live in or their end consumers. That isn’t a good or logical strategy.

That’s not to say that farmers can’t be doing more. There’s a learning piece to sustainability. I may be able to grow a great crop of tomatoes, but I didn’t know what it took to successfully restore habitat areas on the farm. My core strength isn’t being a biologist or a habitat restoration expert. That’s why it’s nice to have partners, like EDF, and the opportunities presented through the Central Valley Habitat Exchange. That way I can make sustainable, holistic management decisions that benefit my farm and the surrounding environment.

What type of conservation practices or restoration projects have you implemented on your property?

We worked with biologists and habitat restoration specialists to reestablish water fowl habitat and riparian corridors on the property. It really had a profound impact on me when I realized just how much diversity we were supporting. I remember when we got the first bird survey back after we completed the riparian corridor work it said we had 49 different species of bird. Looking at a field of tomatoes, there are variances – but it’s still just a field of tomatoes. So it’s pretty amazing that in the same area there’s also all these species of birds, butterflies and terrestrial species. It adds a richness to the place and brings diversity to the day. I used to find myself looking out of only one side of my truck window at the cropland, but now as I drive, I slow down and focus equally on our habitat.

Farmers and environmentalists have often been at odds when it comes to land and water management. Are you hopeful this dynamic can change?

I think the dynamic is changing because the agricultural community and environmentalists are finding a lot of overlap in our work and shared goals for a healthy environment and reliable water supply. We all recognize the challenges of a limited water supply so everyone is coming to the table to figure out how to cope. It’s important to remember that there are intelligent and motivated people on both sides. The environmental community brings a lot of information and expertise on habitat and riparian restoration. Farmers know how to get projects done, and they know the local context. So there’s a really great synergy happening between the two groups. At the end of the day, we all want a vibrant and healthy environment in California and a reliable and safe food supply.

Related: 

There’s good reason to end the agriculture versus the environment fight >>

The hidden opportunity for water storage in California >>

Relationships and incentives: My secret ingredients for better resource management >>

 

During times of water scarcity, like California’s recent drought, it’s tempting to take on a binary view of the world.  This was definitely the case with agriculture, which appeared to be at odds with everyone: farms vs. fish, farm vs. cities, farms vs. regulators.  As a dominant water user in the state, they were easy […]

During times of water scarcity, like California’s recent drought, it’s tempting to take on a binary view of the world.  This was definitely the case with agriculture, which appeared to be at odds with everyone: farms vs. fish, farm vs. cities, farms vs. regulators.  As a dominant water user in the state, they were easy […]

During times of water scarcity, like California’s recent drought, it’s tempting to take on a binary view of the world.  This was definitely the case with agriculture, which appeared to be at odds with everyone: farms vs. fish, farm vs. cities, farms vs. regulators.  As a dominant water user in the state, they were easy […]

A protected underwater realm is a safe haven for countless creatures. But will they escape his executive order unscathed?

A protected underwater realm is a safe haven for countless creatures. But will they escape his executive order unscathed?

By Rory Christian

President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring coal plants to reduce pollution while incentivizing clean energy sources. Taken together, and with the fact that the president pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement, America’s energy agenda gives me pause and cause to worry.

We don’t yet know what the DOE report is going to say, but judging from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s past stance on energy and his latest statements on the matter, it could suggest that the coal industry that has long-been economically uncompetitive due to oversupplied, cheap natural gas, could be propped-up to spew toxic emissions into the future.

Here is the reality: climate change is not a political issue; it is the single greatest threat we face as a generation. Clean energy is our best option to prevent the environmental situation from getting worse because it is at the core of every climate issue. Fortunately, Americans agree on this, and know something must be done.

New York is one example of how Americans and their businesses can “dominate” on their own and help determine the nation’s clean energy future. Moreover, their united effort reflects American spirit and innovation – not just during an “energy week,” but every day.

How ‘Energy Week’ could learn from state clean energy leaders
Click To Tweet

In the years since Hurricane Sandy, New York State and New York City have each committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 while increasing clean energy and energy efficiency in buildings.

And, most importantly, New York backs-up its commitments by allocating funds toward programs, incentives, and projects to accelerate the transition to renewables where it is needed most:

• Since 2012 the State’s solar capacity has increased five-fold (from 175 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts) as a result of Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), New York’s initiative to build a more reliable and resilient electric system.
• Through its OneNYC plan, New York City has committed to installing 100 megawatts of solar on public buildings and to help private buildings put 250 megawatts more in their premises by 2050.
• The New York City Housing Authority has plans to install 25 megawatts of solar in public housing properties over the next 10 years as part of the Renew300 program established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), is dedicated to implementing projects in state facilities, such as the recently established Retrofit Accelerator to help private adoption of distributed energy resources.

Policies implemented so far in New York have created well over 10,000 jobs in the local solar energy, with another 70,000 working to improve energy efficiency.

Locally, these programs will do more than just prepare New York for potential extreme weather events.  They will position the state to be a domestic leader in the clean energy space – especially in the northeast – home to businesses and jobs that will grow our economy.

And with domestic leaders like New York, the U.S. can be better positioned on the global energy field, which now includes clean energy as a major player.

Photo source: Michael Discenza

President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring […]

By Rory Christian

President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring coal plants to reduce pollution while incentivizing clean energy sources. Taken together, and with the fact that the president pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement, America’s energy agenda gives me pause and cause to worry.

We don’t yet know what the DOE report is going to say, but judging from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s past stance on energy and his latest statements on the matter, it could suggest that the coal industry that has long-been economically uncompetitive due to oversupplied, cheap natural gas, could be propped-up to spew toxic emissions into the future.

Here is the reality: climate change is not a political issue; it is the single greatest threat we face as a generation. Clean energy is our best option to prevent the environmental situation from getting worse because it is at the core of every climate issue. Fortunately, Americans agree on this, and know something must be done.

New York is one example of how Americans and their businesses can “dominate” on their own and help determine the nation’s clean energy future. Moreover, their united effort reflects American spirit and innovation – not just during an “energy week,” but every day.

How ‘Energy Week’ could learn from state clean energy leaders
Click To Tweet

In the years since Hurricane Sandy, New York State and New York City have each committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 while increasing clean energy and energy efficiency in buildings.

And, most importantly, New York backs-up its commitments by allocating funds toward programs, incentives, and projects to accelerate the transition to renewables where it is needed most:

• Since 2012 the State’s solar capacity has increased five-fold (from 175 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts) as a result of Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), New York’s initiative to build a more reliable and resilient electric system.
• Through its OneNYC plan, New York City has committed to installing 100 megawatts of solar on public buildings and to help private buildings put 250 megawatts more in their premises by 2050.
• The New York City Housing Authority has plans to install 25 megawatts of solar in public housing properties over the next 10 years as part of the Renew300 program established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), is dedicated to implementing projects in state facilities, such as the recently established Retrofit Accelerator to help private adoption of distributed energy resources.

Policies implemented so far in New York have created well over 10,000 jobs in the local solar energy, with another 70,000 working to improve energy efficiency.

Locally, these programs will do more than just prepare New York for potential extreme weather events.  They will position the state to be a domestic leader in the clean energy space – especially in the northeast – home to businesses and jobs that will grow our economy.

And with domestic leaders like New York, the U.S. can be better positioned on the global energy field, which now includes clean energy as a major player.

Photo source: Michael Discenza