By Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

By Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

As Mayor Roach transitions from current roles, his contributions and impact will persist FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA—June 30, 2017) This week marks the final week in office for Lake Charles Mayor Randy Roach, a man whose public service in office spans more than 30 years when he was first elected to the Louisiana Legislature. In that time, Mayor Roach was a strong advocate for Louisiana’s coast, serving as the Vice-Chairman of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Praise Lake Charles Mayor Roach for Leadership on Louisiana’s Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As Mayor Roach transitions from current roles, his contributions and impact will persist FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA—June 30, 2017) This week marks the final week in office for Lake Charles Mayor Randy Roach, a man whose public service in office spans more than 30 years when he was first elected to the Louisiana Legislature. In that time, Mayor Roach was a strong advocate for Louisiana’s coast, serving as the Vice-Chairman of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Praise Lake Charles Mayor Roach for Leadership on Louisiana’s Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As Mayor Roach transitions from current roles, his contributions and impact will persist FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA—June 30, 2017) This week marks the final week in office for Lake Charles Mayor Randy Roach, a man whose public service in office spans more than 30 years when he was first elected to the Louisiana Legislature. In that time, Mayor Roach was a strong advocate for Louisiana’s coast, serving as the Vice-Chairman of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration ...

Read The Full Story

The post Conservation Groups Praise Lake Charles Mayor Roach for Leadership on Louisiana’s Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Audrey Archer

Audrey applies the Habitat Quantification Tool to a potential restoration site, counting the number of milkweed and wildflower stems within a transect.

This spring, my colleagues and I visited three ranches in Texas to begin piloting the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange, an emerging program that will help agricultural landowners contribute to monarch recovery.

Elm Ridge Ranch, Wagley Ranch and Shield Ranch will be among the first restoration projects conducted this year to improve ranchlands and create valuable monarch habitat. We will continue to work closely with these landowners to hone the program and ensure it works for monarchs, pollinators and people alike.

Already, we’ve had the opportunity to gain valuable insights, including how to improve habitat quantification and how to inspire enrollment.

“You’re in the right place”

When we arrived at Elm Ridge Ranch in Manor, Texas, owner Anne Brockenbrough memorably told us, “You’re in the right place. There are wildflowers and milkweed everywhere around here!” Anne’s ranch is located in the Blackland Prairie region, a high priority for monarch conservation, as less than one percent of the native Texas prairie remains.

A monarch caterpillar rests on a milkweed leaf.

We were as excited as Anne to apply the program’s Habitat Quantification Tool (HQT) to quickly and accurately measure the quality and quantity of monarch habitat at Elm Ridge Ranch. This testing required scoping out habitat locations that were deemed suitable for enhancement activities on the property and using GPS units to navigate to ten randomly-selected points in the targeted pasture location. We then paced out transects and counted milkweed and wildflower stems within each transect – a measure of existing nectar plant species richness and abundance, and a baseline for improvements that we expect to result from habitat enhancement activities.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the level of enthusiasm that landowners like Anne have expressed when they witness this science tool in action, as it is an opportunity for them to learn more about their land and the diversity of plant species, which is also a sign of soil health and broader ecosystem health. We were all also pleased to have the opportunity to see monarchs at various life cycle stages, from caterpillar instars through adults.

From testing to launch: A new program for monarchs takes flight, via @audarcher…
Click To Tweet

Customizing projects for each ranch

In addition to testing and calibrating the science tool, we also worked with each landowner to design enhancement projects that would work for them.

The site of a previous prescribed burn at Wagley Ranch — an area now covered in a healthy diversity of plants.

This process included everyone sitting down with a map of each property and determining a "game plan" for where and how best to enhance habitat.

At Wagley Ranch in Mineral Wells, Texas, we visited with landowners Sue and Jay Wagley who have long collaborated with EDF to conserve habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler. This time, we discussed ways that habitat could be conserved for monarchs as well.

While applying the HQT, we observed three milkweed species and wildflowers in every color of the rainbow in an area that experienced prescribed burning six months prior. The site’s HQT score validated that the fire resulted in high-quality habitat for monarchs and pollinators.

After discussing the benefits of prescribed burning with the landowners, together we designed Wagley Ranch’s monarch habitat enhancement plan, which includes additional areas that would benefit from prescribed burns to reduce competition from woody vegetation and non-native grasses for monarch-friendly wildflowers.

At each of the various ranches we visited, it was moving to see how people with different backgrounds and experiences came together to make a plan based on what was best for the landowners, and for the butterflies.

From pilot to “Open for Business”

Shield Ranch, near downtown Austin, is a 6,800-acre property devoted to responsible range management and wildlife conservation. The landowners are exceptional stewards and are thrilled to start implementing new techniques to support monarchs – exactly the kind of landowners we’re seeking to enroll in the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange.

A field of wildflowers at Shield Ranch.

Already, we’ve seen an impressive number of landowners raising their hands to participate, which is not surprising considering that the techniques to enhance monarch habitat quality are activities that help improve soil quality, water quality and provide other added benefits to the property. In order to unleash this untapped supply of monarch habitat, our monarch team is currently approaching a wide variety of potential demand sources including agribusiness, philanthropic foundations and the general public.

There are immediate opportunities for interested parties to invest in monarch habitat on ranches and farms in Texas, Missouri and California. Investment funds go directly to the Exchange Administrator – Biodiversity Works – for disbursement to high-priority projects.

As we prepare to hang the “Open for Business” sign on the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange this fall, I’m inspired by the enthusiasm that all stakeholders have shown. It gives me great hope that, very soon, many farms and ranches will have butterflies as part of their business models.

Related:

Ranchlands: An untapped reservoir of monarch butterfly habitat >>

Monarch butterflies get help from Texas ranch >>

To help the environment, we must first help people >>

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

In the same week Apple raised $1 billion through green bonds to invest in clean energy, and Amazon put solar panels on a million square foot processing facility, the Trump administration – at the urging of the worst elements in the oil and gas industry –proposed a two-year delay of sensible rules that would limit emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, has been put forward as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels and as an energy resource that can play a key role in the transition to a lower-carbon future. But now more than ever, that proposition is now called into serious question.

How will natural gas compete in a changing world?

Every year, oil and gas operations around the country emit some 8-10 million metric tons of methane into the air. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about a quarter of the climate warming we’re experiencing today – and those emissions come mingled with a host of other smog-forming and carcinogenic pollutants.

There are cost-effective, proven ways to reduce these emissions, and leading companies are already implementing them. The problem is, many companies refuse to address the problem on their own. And now they’re looking to the Trump administration for a free pass to pollute.

When trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute attack cost-effective policies that protect public health and the climate, it sends a signal that the natural gas industry will do everything it can to maximize short-term profits – even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the industry in the eyes of the public and jeopardizing its ability to operate over the long term.

The question is: In an increasingly carbon constrained world, what is the natural gas industry’s plan for the future?

We’re not arguing that gas is at risk of going away tomorrow. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, as new technologies and processes have unlocked massive, cheap reserves. But make no mistake, the transition to cleaner energy in the U.S. and across the globe is irreversible and accelerating. In this context, fighting reasonable and necessary emissions rules only magnifies risk for the natural gas industry and its investors. It’s a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the realities of what consumers, communities and markets demand.

Capital markets shifting to cleaner companies and forms of energy

The Trump administration’s recent moves come at a time when environmental concerns informing investment decisions are reaching record highs. For example, investors with $10 trillion in assets under management have committed to the Montreal Carbon Pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of their portfolios, with an eye towards portfolio de-carbonization in the long run.

As part of the shift to assets in lower emitting companies and industries, investors are demanding better carbon and methane disclosure as well as proactive environmental management. The recent watershed Exxon vote, in which 62% of investors (including industry titans like BlackRock and Vanguard) demanded better climate risk disclosure from Exxon management, showed that carbon risk considerations have hit the mainstream.

Increasingly, investors see methane simply as a form of carbon risk in need of management, not neglect. And methane waste can be cost-effectively managed – as proven in states like Colorado where production has continued apace even as strict methane rules have come on the books.

On top of investors’ efforts to shift portfolios towards cleaner companies, the divestment movement also continues to grow, driven by a range of environmental risks of owning fossil fuel stocks. Just recently mainstream investor CalSTRS divested from coal. Going forward, increasing numbers of investors will look carefully at the environmental record of oil and natural gas companies in determining their comfort level in continuing to invest.

Some companies lead but no substitute for commonsense rules

Companies like Southwestern Energy, Noble, Shell and others have led on methane emissions by setting methane targets, supporting state-based regulations, and working with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to disclose methane emissions. Their efforts certainly deserve recognition, and are supported by some investors who factor strong methane management into investment decision.

Still, voluntary actions by the few are no substitute for rules and oversight that require responsible operations by the thousands of oil and gas companies operating in the United States. Some of these companies simply lack a commitment to sustainability and to operating over the long-term, and will not rein in emissions unless they are required to do so by law.

Methane safeguards serve the long-term interests of industry and investors

As the scientific reality of climate change and consumer demand steer the world toward a cleaner energy future, will attacks on environmental protections inflict lasting damage on the oil and gas industry? Only time will tell. It’s likely, however, that if the loudest industry voices continue to oppose rules that could guide it toward a cleaner future, the industry as a whole will suffer.  Unfortunately, that will include the more forward-leaning companies, which will be dragged down by their intransigent peers. This outcome will become all the more likely thanks to the Trump administration’s erosion of environmental safeguards that are fundamental to responsible development.

It’s time for oil and gas operators and mainstream investors with a long-term view to take a look at what rules and regulations are needed to rein in methane emissions in their industry. And they also need decide if they want to align themselves with an administration whose policies may be unwittingly handicapping the very industry it attempts to serve.

LUCY’S RETIRED SURFERS BAR & RESTAURANT! Asian carp, an invasive species with a growing presence in the Gulf of Mexico, spurred a competition among area chefs from Alma, Café Carmo, Lucy’s Retired Surfers Bar & Restaurant and Spotted Cat Food & Spirits. The event was emceed by Chef Kevin Belton, who came straight from taping his show at the WYES studio. The event was hosted by Restore the Mississippi River Delta and the Culinaria Center at the Southern Food and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Best of Bycatch: And the Winner Is… appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

LUCY’S RETIRED SURFERS BAR & RESTAURANT! Asian carp, an invasive species with a growing presence in the Gulf of Mexico, spurred a competition among area chefs from Alma, Café Carmo, Lucy’s Retired Surfers Bar & Restaurant and Spotted Cat Food & Spirits. The event was emceed by Chef Kevin Belton, who came straight from taping his show at the WYES studio. The event was hosted by Restore the Mississippi River Delta and the Culinaria Center at the Southern Food and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Best of Bycatch: And the Winner Is… appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

LUCY’S RETIRED SURFERS BAR & RESTAURANT! Asian carp, an invasive species with a growing presence in the Gulf of Mexico, spurred a competition among area chefs from Alma, Café Carmo, Lucy’s Retired Surfers Bar & Restaurant and Spotted Cat Food & Spirits. The event was emceed by Chef Kevin Belton, who came straight from taping his show at the WYES studio. The event was hosted by Restore the Mississippi River Delta and the Culinaria Center at the Southern Food and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Best of Bycatch: And the Winner Is… appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

This month on our podcast, we talked with Whitney Tome, Executive Director of Green 2.0, to talk about the importance of diversity in the environmental movement. In talking about our need to have more chairs at the table, we discussed Green 2.0’s new report, Beyond Diversity, which looked at how hiring practices might be reshaped […]

By Jonathan Choi

This month on our podcast, we talked with Whitney Tome, Executive Director of Green 2.0, to talk about the importance of diversity in the environmental movement. In talking about our need to have more chairs at the table, we discussed Green 2.0’s new report, Beyond Diversity, which looked at how hiring practices might be reshaped to cast a bigger net, as well as their scorecards on the state of racial and gender representation at major environmental organizations.

Want more? Subscribe to us on iTunes or Google Play, or check out our SoundCloud to listen via desktop!

Written by Diane MacEachern

Chevy Volt

Electric vehicles, or EVs, seem to be setting off more and more fireworks – figuratively, that is.

According to the US Department of Energy, electric vehicles can help reduce air pollution:

“Plug-in electric vehicles (also known as electric cars or EVs) can help keep your town and your world clean. In general, EVs produce fewer emissions that contribute to climate change and smog than conventional vehicles.”

The availability of electric vehicles is increasing, their price is decreasing, they’re some folks’ answer to Trump’s dumb decision to pull out of the Paris Accord…they’re even becoming part of the sharing economy.

Plus, the “vehicle” in EV doesn’t only mean “car.” Bikes and buses are becoming electrified, too.

Bottom line: If you’re traveling for the 4th of July, are in the market for a new car, or just want to see what all the fuss is about, here are 5 ways you can dabble in the EV world and see if electric “fireworks” just might be in your future.

1. Electric Bikes – Gasoline-powered bikes have been around for years (my son actually built one 10 years ago as an engineering experiment), but they’re noisy, dirty and offer no climate change benefit whatsoever, other than perhaps using less gas than a car to cover the same distance. Electric bikes, on the other hand, are gaining in popularity, and well they should. Take a look at the models featured in this Treehugger article. Some of the bikes can cover 90 miles on a single charge. Many of them can be retrofitted to carry a significant amount of cargo, groceries, and kids. They’re compact, so easy to park. And man, do they look cool!
2. Electric City Buses – Cities have been switching from diesel to cleaner burning natural gas as a way to cut unhealthy smog and meet requirements under the Clean Air Act. But Los Angeles is one city that is going a step further and planning to electrify a portion of its bus fleet. They’re starting with 35 buses, but by 2030, their goal is to have all 2200 vehicles in their system powered by electricity. Don’t want to wait until LA has its act together? Use this map to find over 300 zero emission buses operating around the U.S.
3. EV Car Sharing – While we’re talking about LA, it’s worth noting that the City of Angels is earning its nickname by creating a program to make electric vehicles available to low- and moderate-income folks. EVs have been primarily bought be people of higher income levels at prices people of modest means can’t afford. Making EVs available to anyone who needs transportation, regardless of income, will help LA continue to clean up its air. Plus, says Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, creating an EV car-sharing program shows President Trump that “with or without Washington we are forging ahead, we are moving ahead with our climate change policies.”
4. Electricity Sharing – If you’ve been concerned about getting an EV because you’re not sure where you’ll be able to charge it, maybe you just need to look next door or across the street. More and more EV owners are installing their charging stations in spots that are easy for their neighbors and visitors to use. How altruistic is that? Of course, many cities have been setting up charging stations for their citizens to encourage them to buy electric. Businesses from Whole Foods to Best Buy have been putting in chargers, as well, so customers can recharge while they shop. But to have one neighbor put in a station and make it available to others to use? That takes the cake. Many of these folks don’t charge for the service, but I think if I did it, I’d put a little box next to the plug and ask people to make donations to Moms Clean Air Force. Just sayin’!
5. Rent an EV – A quick online search shows that most of the major car rental agencies offer electric vehicles in their fleets, in addition to standard hybrids and some plug-in hybrid models. Whether they’re available in the city where you need to rent is another question, but the more you ask for it, the more availability will increase. One benefit of renting an EV is that it gives you the chance to test drive the vehicle if you’re in the market for a new car. Even if you’re not, remember that any premium price you might pay on an EV will probably be offset by a very appealing factor: you’ll be spending no money on gasoline!

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

Written by Molly Rauch

Yesterday, Moms Clean Air Force released a new survey that explores what American moms think about air pollution and climate change. It’s the first of its kind — and it confirms what we are already seeing on the ground in the work that we do every day.

Here are some of the major findings:

• There is strong agreement among all moms about the importance of these issues – 78% of US moms are concerned about air pollution and climate change, and we want our leaders to take action.
• Conservative moms also care deeply about climate change and air pollution – 59% of self-identified conservative moms and grandmas are concerned about these issues.
• There is particularly strong support for climate action and protections from air pollution among Latinas and African American moms – 84% and 85% of these moms, respectively, are concerned about climate change and air pollution.

So what does this mean? It means that children’s health transcends partisan lines. Moms understand that it’s important to protect our kids from air pollution, which can trigger asthma attacks, cause lung infections, and even shorten life spans. As moms, we get it that our kids will bear the brunt of climate change.

Right now, EPA’s budget faces draconian cuts and lawmakers are trying to gut the Clean Air Act. There’s never been a more important time to raise our voices — as moms — against the air pollution that harms our children.

Together we’re building a diverse community of voices on these issues. A community of more than a million moms from different political, cultural, racial, and demographic backgrounds. We’ve won hearts and minds with our message of hope and urgent action, and we are finding that when moms come together to raise our voices, we make progress.

But our work is far from done. Too many kids suffer from asthma, a condition that is made worse by air pollution. Too many kids are having to limit outside play because of heat waves, wildfires, and other climate-change-related impacts. Too many communities are staring down the barrel of devastating sea level rise and damage to critical infrastructure.

We want cleaner air for our families, not dirtier air. As moms, we want, and deserve, leaders who will protect our children from air pollution and climate change.

We already knew before this survey was conducted that moms have passion and power – an unbeatable combination. Now, we are more resolved than ever to harness the strength of motherlove to fight back against polluters.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[This post is adapted from comments I provided for the science policy panel at the June 27, 2017, forum TSCA Reform: One Year Later, co-sponsored by Environmental Law Institute, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., Environmental Defense Fund, and George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.]

I don’t know anyone who opposes EPA using the best science it can and considering all the evidence in making decisions.

So why is it that this science stuff is so controversial?  It’s long been a battleground across all of what EPA does, and the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was no exception.  I have no doubt this will continue unabated into implementation of the amendments to TSCA made by last year’s Lautenberg Act.

Science policy issues are among the most “cultish” of any policy issues I have ever dealt with.  Different camps have formed, each with its own belief system, each seeing a right way and a wrong way of doing science.  Each is highly suspicious of the others, including what they mean by each word.

At the risk of appearing cultish myself, I want to briefly discuss my concerns about the final prioritization and risk evaluation rules in relation to the term “best available science.”  

Let me first say that section 26(h) of the Lautenberg Act [15 U.S.C. 2625(h)] itself already requires this term to be applied to science decisions EPA makes under the law.  Its codification in rules is not needed for it to have effect.  Yet this term is clearly important to some who were involved in writing these final rules.

Care to guess how many times this term appear in the final risk evaluation rule?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  Three dozen?  Would you believe there are 37 references to “best available science”?  That compares to just four references in the proposed rule issued in January.

Somebody really likes this term, and got it into the rules along with a definition.  Hmmm.

Whatever the motivation, the irony here is core features of the final rules – each the result of changes made since their proposal that were made to address chemical industry concerns – would actually move us away from any meaningful realization of what this term intends.

First, a major criticism of traditional risk assessment for decades has been its failure to adequately account for the real world:  the fact that there are typically multiple uses and sources of exposure to a given chemical, with the potential to affect multiple subpopulations.

I thought we finally had made progress toward addressing this flaw through last year’s TSCA reform:  The law requires, and the proposed rules sought to codify the requirement, that EPA must conduct broad reviews of chemicals across their full lifecycles and accounting for their known, intended and reasonably foreseen uses.

Yet the changes made to the final rules represent a renewed effort to move us squarely away from that, by allowing and facilitating EPA to examine only certain use of and exposures to a chemical;  little explanation, let alone specific criteria, are provided as to how these use exclusions will be determined.

In reforming TSCA, Congress explicitly required that EPA determine whether or not a chemical substance, not individual uses, presents unreasonable risk, and to do so by conducting comprehensive risk evaluations.  This is because, while exposures resulting from certain uses of a chemical viewed in isolation may present low risk to some groups of people, when multiple exposures are combined and when all potentially susceptible subpopulations are considered, such a chemical may well present unreasonable risk and warrant restrictions.

Yet the final risk evaluation rule would not only allow EPA to exclude some uses altogether, but it could make individual risk determinations about specific uses it does examine and set them aside, with no requirement ever to consider them collectively.

How is that best available science?

Second, perhaps my longest-running battle in the chemicals arena has been trying to ensure there is adequate information on chemicals in order to determine their safety.  TSCA’s own preamble set that as national policy in 1976, calling for the development of such information and placing the onus of doing so squarely on the companies that make and use chemicals.

Starting with EDF’s 1997 report called Toxic Ignorance, we have drawn attention to how little information is available even on the most widely used chemicals.  Some limited progress has been made since then, but the fundamental problem remains.  Why?

The chemical industry has always wanted it both ways on this one:  It seeks to set an ever-higher bar EPA must meet to take action on a chemical, routinely challenging the science and information used.  But it also fights any efforts to require companies to provide the information the agency needs to meet that bar.

Again, I thought we were finally making progress with TSCA reform.  Core aspects of that reform addressed the widespread recognition that EPA lacked adequate authority to require testing of chemicals, and the proposed rules sought to ensure that EPA could use its enhanced authority to develop that information where needed far enough ahead of having to make prioritization decisions and risk determinations that it could still meet the law’s aggressive deadlines.

Yet the final rules seem intent on undermining all this:  They seek to cut off early information development – and then argue that, given the deadlines, there isn’t time for anything other than very short-term testing.  They would require EPA always first to request voluntary submissions, eating up precious time, despite multiple past failures of such voluntary approaches.  All of this before EPA could ever invoke the new testing authorities Congress just gave it.  Among other problems, this would introduce a strong bias for EPA only to select relatively data-rich chemicals in order to meet its deadlines, rather than dedicating its resources initially to chemicals that present the greatest potential concerns.

How is this best available science?