MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming » Yale Climate Connections
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 25 Mar '20

25 Mar '20

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-plantin… The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming Bruce Lieberman It seems like such a simple, straightforward, empowering idea: plant trees – a lot of trees – all over the world, and watch the planet’s temperature fall. Who doesn’t love a tree or two, even far more – the right tree in the right place? Along with the refreshing shade they provide on hot days, trees of course also store carbon, and they’ll suck it right out of our fragile atmosphere as they grow. Who could argue with more trees, more forests – more shade! – in a warming world? Nary a soul, one suspects, whether of conventional “tree hugger” category or rabid climate science detractor. Earlier this year, the one-trillion tree campaign was big news at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Salesforce founder Businessman Marc Benioff announced at the meeting that his company will “support and mobilize the conservation and restoration of 100 million trees over the next decade.” Back in Washington, D.C., President Trump and Republican lawmakers said they too support the international campaign – although Arkansas Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman came under fire for proposing a “Trillion Trees Act” that would pair a commitment to planting trees with a plan to increase logging on public lands. Numerous other Republican representatives are endorsing the trees effort. Cautions against just randomly digging and planting Over the past few weeks, chatter has picked up that planting trees is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to combating climate change. Trees are a good thing, but: We also need to protect existing forests – the Amazon, for example. We need to ramp up wind, solar, and geothermal energy. We need to burn less fossil fuel. We need to eat more of the right foods and less of the wrong ones and, above all else, eat sustainably. We need higher vehicle-mileage standards and more electric cars. We need to get our act together so we can better adapt to rising seas, more droughts and wildfires, and unpredictable swings in weather. Like other initiatives to tackle climate change, planting trees requires some forethought. Recent news coverage of the trillion tree campaign points to several things people should be thinking about before digging and planting. Authors of a 2019 study from the Swiss research university, ETH Zurich, estimated that the planet can support about 2.5 billion more acres of newly planted trees – without tearing down cities and doing away with farms. And they say those trees could store about 200 gigatons of carbon (GtC) once they mature. That’s equal to one-third of all the carbon that humans have emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide pollution, the authors claimed. The New York Times summarized the study last year. Researcher: ‘Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many [trees] as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.’ Scientist Zeke Hausfather, long a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections, suggested in a series of tweets at the time that the study was misleading on a few counts. For one thing, cumulative emissions from land use and burning fossil fuels were closer to 640 GtC, “so removing 200 GtC would represent one-third of historic emissions.” Hausfather also pointed to the practical and economic challenges of planting trees on every acre of available land. India is intimately familiar with this challenge. Last summer the country planted hundreds of millions of trees as part of an initiative to keep one-third of its land area covered in trees. But the nation’s high population and rapid industrialization pose challenges to sustained reforestation. Only about 60% of the saplings are expected to survive – the rest succumbing to disease and a lack of water. A Skeptical Science article by Dana Nuccitelli, a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections and an environmental scientist, cites additional studies that have raised several other key points. Among them: Tundra and boreal regions unpopulated by trees play an important global role in reflecting energy from the sun back into space. Planting trees in these regions would darken landscapes at these high latitudes, causing them to absorb energy from the sun rather than reflect it – ultimately contributing to higher global temperatures and offsetting cooling created by planting trees. The ETH Zurich researchers mistakenly considered natural savannas, grasslands, and shrublands as places where forests could be restored. And in their ETH Zurich study, they estimated a carbon sequestration rate of 0.22 GtC per million hectares (i.e., for every 2.47 million acres). But 0.22 GtC is twice the amount cited by previously published estimates. Trees deserve a ‘moment’ of fame, but keep reality in mind So while the right kinds and numbers of tree species in the right places have lots of appeal, big questions remain over exactly what can be accomplished by planting one trillion trees – and whether it may cause more harm than good. James Temple, senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, summed up the view of many experts in a January 28 piece when he wrote: “It’s great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.” Temple raised a few more important points, some of which have been echoed elsewhere. Among them: trees take time to grow and reach maturity – decades and even centuries for redwoods and other behemoths that can store massive amounts of carbon. If you think you’re going to immediately offset your carbon footprint from flying across the country by planting a tree … think again. Another point Temple made: You really have to work the numbers to get a true sense of the challenge. For example, he wrote, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. To offset that much CO2 pollution, you’d have to plant a forest – and wait for it to fully mature – that is more than twice the size of Texas. The one-trillion tree campaign raises still more questions for forest ecologists – one of them having to do with biodiversity. If the campaign results in what are essentially tree plantations lacking biodiversity and genetic variation, often referred to as monoculture, those artificial forests won’t get very far. “People are getting caught up in the wrong solution,” Forrest Fleischman of the University of Minnesota told The Verge in late January. “Instead of that guy from Salesforce saying, ‘I’m going to put money into planting a trillion trees,’ I’d like him to go and say, ‘I’m going to put my money into helping indigenous people in the Amazon defend their lands.’ That’s going to have a bigger impact.” A campaign to plant “one trillion trees” sounds ambitious, it sounds daring, and it sounds exciting. And in many ways it could be all of those. But keep in mind that since 2015 and just in the Sierra Nevada – that sliver of mountain habitat that runs along the spine of California – nearly 150 million trees have died, victims of drought, disease, and invasion by beetles. Warmer winters have contributed to a population explosion of these destructive insects, and it’s a story being played out across the American West where forest fires are growing in frequency and intensity. So maybe we can plant a trillion trees around the globe. But if we don’t do much else about climate change, will we just be fueling the fire? So maybe we can and should plant a trillion trees around the globe. Go for it. But a wide array of experts insist that if we don’t also take numerous other actions to address climate change – specifically including major cuts in fossil fuel emissions and in particular carbon dioxide – we may just be fueling the fire. In the end, it comes down to more trees and lots of other actions, not to more trees or. More to read “Tree planting is Trump’s politically safe new climate plan,” Vox, Feb. 4, 2020 “Trump and the trillion trees,” The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020 “What’s better than planting a trillion trees? Protecting the forests while we are at it.,” The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2020 “Planting trees won’t save the world,” The New York Times, Feb. 12, 2020 “Republican lawmakers introduce trillion trees act to combat climate change,” Reason, Feb. 13, 2020 “1 trillion trees: What would it take, how would it work, and is it even worth it?,”Fast Company, Feb. 19, 2020 “Panel battles over tree-planting legislation,” The Hill, Feb. 26, 2020 “A trillion trees not enough to fix climate crisis, critics say,” PhysOrg, Feb. 27, 2020 Filed under: Bruce Lieberman Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Virginia Clean Economy Act clears General Assembly, aided by beefed-up ratepayer protections - Virginia Mercury
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 07 Mar '20

07 Mar '20

Virginia Clean Economy Act clears General Assembly, aided by beefed-up ratepayer protections - Virginia Mercury, March 7, 2020 The Virginia Clean Economy Act cleared its last hurdle in the General Assembly this week when both the House of Delegates and the Senate agreed to a final version that reflected the more aggressive House timeline of making Virginia’s electric grid carbon-free by 2045 while also incorporating stronger protections for electric utility ratepayers. The bill, SB 851, heads to the desk of Gov. Ralph Northam, whose administration has been heavily involved in pushing it forward. Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, the Senate patron of the bill, called the passage “a major historic moment” that will “break our reliance on fossil fuels.” “I kept thinking the entire time we were voting about the moon landing and wanted to shout, ‘The eagle has landed!’ on that final vote,” she said at a news conference Friday. “That’s how big this is. This is a giant leap forward for Virginia.” https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/03/06/virginia-clean-economy-act-clear…

1 0

West Virginia burn laws now in effect | WVNS
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 03 Mar '20

03 Mar '20

https://www.wvnstv.com/news/west-virginia-burn-laws-now-in-effect/ West Virginia burn laws now in effect Adeena Balthazor, West Virginia News Service, March 1, 2020 GHENT, WV (WVNS)– With the winter season nearing its end, many people are raking up leaves from last fall and burning them. However, certain laws going into effect only allow residents to do so within certain times. Spring fire season starts Sunday, March 1, 2020 and runs until May 31, 2020. Statewide burning is only permitted from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. All fires mush have a ring or safety strip. Only materials such as leaves, brush and yard clippings are permitted to be burned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: I question whether leaves should be burned anytime, night or day. They do not burn well (often damp), resulting in extremely toxic fumes, i.e. highly reactive organic species that damage the human lungs. More generally, outdoor burning of ANYTHING results in more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which needs to be discouraged and outlawed. Waste disposal services can landfill such materials or composting can be done. Duane Nichols

1 0

No PTTG & No Storage Hub: Petrochemicals and Plastics
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 02 Mar '20

02 Mar '20

https://ohvec.org/no-pttg-petrochemicals-plastic/ No PTTG: Petrochemicals and Plastic For Immediate Release Date: March 2, 2020 Contacts: Dustin White, OVEC—Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, 304-541-3144, dustin(a)ohvec.org Bev Reed, Concerned Ohio River Residents, 740-738-3024, ConcernedOhioRiverResidents(a)yahoo.com No PTTG: Petrochemicals and Plastics Local Citizens go to State Capitol and Voice Opposition to Petrochemicals/Plastics Hub CHARLESTON, W.VA.—Residents from Marshall and Ohio counties, WV, and Belmont County, OH, made a three-hour trek to the WV State Capitol today to meet with legislators to speak about their opposition to an ethane cracker plant that PTT Global Chemical wants to build in Dilles Bottom, OH, across from Moundsville, WV. The cracker plant would impact the air quality of Moundsville and Wheeling, WV, which already have poor air quality. The residents informed lawmakers of their concerns about the PTTG cracker, which is just one component of many that would be part of the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub (ASH). This is an umbrella name for a proposed petrochemical mega-complex, which primarily would use fracked natural gas liquids to make plastics in the Ohio and Kanawha River valleys. One similar facility, the Shell ethane cracker, is already under construction in Monaca, PA. If built, the petrochemical hub would span more than 400 miles along the rivers. Infrastructure related to the hub could reach into a 500-square-mile area in more than 50 counties in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. The infrastructure would include cracker plants and other types of refineries, underground storage facilities, and thousands of miles of pipelines. The feedstock for the petrochemical factories would come from a massive increase in regional fracking. The residents noted that this proposed petrochemical buildout would exacerbate air and water pollution and threaten the health of the five million residents who depend on the Ohio River as a public water source. West Virginia already has a history of petrochemical-related disasters, including C8 pollution and the 2014 MCHM water crisis. This proposed petrochemical corridor would exacerbate both climate change and the growing global plastic pollution crisis. Nonetheless, during the 2020 Legislative Session, many legislators have pushed a pro-petrochemical agenda, often referring to the proposed hub as a “petrochemical renaissance.” Several bills were introduced to “lure” the petrochemical industry to West Virginia, including HB 4001, the Mountaineer Impact Fund, which could, according to one reporter’s analysis, “reopen the door” for an $83.7 billion investment by China Energy in petrochemical infrastructure in the state. The bill would allow West Virginia to serve as an official partner in investment deals, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook. HB 4421, the Natural Gas Liquids Economic Development Act, would provide tax credits to companies that transport or store natural gas liquids. HB 4019 would also give major tax breaks to the industry. Another proposal is HB 4615, an anti-protest bill, written to intimidate residents like those visiting the capitol today and keep them from participating in direct-action protests aimed at so-called “critical infrastructure”—oil, gas, and petrochemical industries—by enacting harsh penalties on protestors and their allies. Legislators are pushing this agenda with little to no input from community members affected by the petrochemical complex and are ignoring scientific evidence and real-world precedence: Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” has disproportionately high cases of human health impacts and economic disparity. Quotes from residents at the State Capitol today: Bev Reed, Bridgeport, OH, resident and leader with the community group Concerned Ohio River Residents, who lives just a few miles north of the proposed PTTG site: “I went to a university in West Virginia and I currently work in West Virginia. It is very unfortunate to see Ohio and West Virginia legislators pushing hard for this petrochemical/plastics hub. The Hub is about propping up a failing fossil fuel industry with plastic production at the expense of our health, air, water, pocketbooks, and future generations. There is much opposition to the hub in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia. We are here today to represent our communities. We ask the legislators to represent their people, not overseas corporate profits.” Vincent DeGeorge, Ph.D., a Wheeling resident, researcher, and teacher of materials science and engineering at a state university: “As a lifelong West Virginian and as a scientific expert in both energy and materials, I cannot justify new large-scale investment in fossil fuels and plastics as positive for our state. If West Virginia fails to diversify our economy away from its fossil-fuel dominance and dependence, and instead doubles down by adding the globally collapsing plastics industry, we can only expect our economic, environmental, and public health problems to continue for future generations.” Barbra Chamberlin, Moundsville resident: “My home in Moundsville, West Virginia is being threatened with toxic air and water and environmental destruction due to the possible construction of a petrochemical plant on the Ohio River. I have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, great-nephews and great-nieces, and a great-great-niece. I am sure they would wonder why we would do this to their home. Will the final years of my life be spent struggling to stay healthy in this toxic environment? Will I be able to breathe clean air and find clean water to drink? The transient jobs would not be worth the destruction of our home.” ### Sent from my iPad

1 0

Whose Land Is This Land? | Sierra Club
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/whose-land-atlantic-coast-pipeline-appala… Whose Land Is This Land? A battle over a fracked gas pipeline turns into a fight for the future of energy The Appalachian Trail winds for over 2,000 miles from Georgia to Maine, through state, federal, and private land. Some portions of the trail run alongside city streets, like in Hot Springs, North Carolina. Some portions of the trail cross rivers, like the Kennebec River in Maine. And some portions of the trail cross through National Forest, like the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests that cover parts of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Typically, land within a national forest is managed by the US Forest Service, while the Appalachian Trail itself is administered by the National Park Service. The Forest Service, for its part, is authorized to allow the development of national forests for multiple use, meaning that it can grant permits to industries that want to use the resources of the national forest to their benefit. But what about the parts of the Appalachia Trail that cross through a national forest—are those areas Forest Service land, or Parks Service land? That is largely the question that the Supreme Court sought to answer when it heard oral arguments Monday in Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. The case concerns the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a joint venture of the energy giants Dominion Energy and Duke Energy that would carry fracked gas from the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia to Virginia and North Carolina. In 2017, the US Forest Service issued the necessary permits for the pipeline to cross a portion of the Appalachian Trail that runs through the George Washington National Forest. Environmental and conservation groups, including the Sierra Club, sued to overturn the permits. Eventually, a federal court of appeals ruled that the permits were invalid because, among other things, the Forest Service lacked jurisdiction under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act to grant a right-of-way for a pipeline on any land in the National Parks System. In one sense, the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast Pipeline will have a limited impact on the pipeline’s future. The court of appeals vacated eight permits based on four independent grounds, including an inadequate environmental review process and an inadequate consideration of alternative routes. The pipeline’s construction has been plagued by delays and beleaguered by community protests. Because of these setbacks, developers have seen the cost of the pipeline balloon to $8 billion from the original price tag of about $5 billion. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the pipeline, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the pipeline will ever become operational. But don’t mistake the fate of this single pipeline for the fate of fossil fuel development in the United States, particularly across some of the country’s most beloved natural lands. Even if a favorable decision won’t automatically save the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, there’s a reason that the energy companies petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the issue. This case is not just about the one pipeline: it’s about all the pipelines to come. On a map, the National Park system is a scatter-shot constellation of the 84 million acres that comprise the US National Parks. While there are notable exceptions in the West and in Alaska, in most places, a national park is an island unto itself; the parks may be numerous, but they relatively isolated from one another. That isolation creates gaps between the boundaries of the parks that, as the attorney for the pipeline companies told the Supreme Court, are “easy enough to steer a pipeline around.” But take a look at the National Trails system--which was created by Congress in 1968 to allow for “the establishment of a national system of recreation and scenic trails”-- and things change. Unlike the Park System, the National Trails system runs like rivulets across the entire map. The Appalachian Trail follows the length of the East Coast; in the center of the country, the Lewis and Clark Trail cuts down the middle of the Dakotas into the heart of the Midwest. And in California and Oregon, the California Historic Trail curves through a thicket of national parks and national forests as its tributaries reach for the Pacific. The environmental groups in Atlantic Coast Pipeline don’t suggest that an oil and gas pipeline can never cross any land in the National Trails system. But just as the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 prohibits the construction of pipeline on National Park System land without Congressional approval, environmental groups argue that pipelines cannot be built across National Trails land that is administered by the National Park Service without Congressional approval. Put another way: if federal land is administered by the National Park Service, environmentalists argued before the court, it is necessarily National Park System land. And Congress has made it very clear that you can’t build oil-and-gas pipelines on federal land in a national park without Congressional approval. If the Supreme Court were to side with the environmental groups, it would mean that, on the map of the United States, the gaps between the national parks where it is currently “easy enough to steer a pipeline around” would constrict, if only just a little bit. It wouldn’t make pipeline construction impossible, by any stretch. The Appalachian Trail, which is a patchwork of federal, state, and private land, wouldn’t become the “impermeable barrier” that Chief Justice John Roberts described at oral argument. Companies like Duke and Dominion could still construct a pipeline across the Appalachian Trail. They would just have to do it across private, local, or state land. Limitations, of course, create costs, which is perhaps the real reason that Duke Energy (which earned $2.7 billion in 2018) and Dominion (which earned $2.6 billion over the same period) would balk at the idea of having to choose from a slightly more limited set of options for delivering fossil fuels to consumers. Pipelines are already a costly venture, and fossil fuels are a bad investment. To capitalize on as much profit as possible, energy companies need to build their oil and gas pipelines now. That, ultimately, is the problem that the energy companies asked the Supreme Court to solve--and the problem that the court’s conservative justices seem most eager to answer. Describing the consequences of the environmental groups’ argument as “enormous,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, appeared deeply skeptical of the idea that Congress would ever intend to make the Appalachian Trail off limits to oil and gas pipelines (per his usual silence, Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask a question at oral argument). “You would expect to see clear language like that to generate the significant consequences that your position has,” Kavanaugh told the environmental groups’ attorney at oral arguments. “You have textual arguments, the other side has textual arguments, but your position has significant consequences to it, enormous consequences.” Later, Justice Alito described the environmental groups’ claim as a “gotcha” argument, patched together through a lucky confluence of statutory language. The court’s conservative justices did not, at oral argument, acknowledge the enormous consequences on the other side of the ledger; that is, the consequences that have already come from the unfettered extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, like the gas that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would carry to the eastern seaboard. Nor did the conservative justices signal any discomfort with the consequence of upending parts of the Appalachian Trail for a pipeline intended to serve a demand that might not exist. At one point, Justice Stephen Breyer—considered to be part of the court’s more liberal arm—suggested that the pipeline developers might be able to win on narrower grounds than a sweeping proclamation that National Trail lands administered by the Park Service are not units of the National Park System. “I represent the Atlantic Coast Pipeline,” the attorney for the pipeline replied. “It's not my job to resist winning this case on a narrow ground.” But with a five to four conservative majority, the Supreme Court seems poised to give the pipeline company the broad victory it desires, thwarting environmentalists’ attempts to limit, even slightly, the land across which oil and gas pipelines can be built in this country. Our national trails, the court seems ready to rule, are important—just not so important as a company’s right to bring fossil fuels to market. The consequences of hindering an energy company’s profits are “enormous;” the consequences of allowing the unfettered extraction and use of fossil fuels, at least to the court’s conservative majority, merits no consideration. It is a sobering vision of our country’s energy future. Perhaps more importantly, it is a sobering look into the role that the courts will play in halting—or hastening—the climate crisis. Sent from my iPad

1 0

Tell states to cut transportation emissions: 2 days left
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

From: Clean Air Council <joe_minott(a)cleanair.org> > Date: February 26, 2020 at 10:30:40 AM EST > Subject: Tell states to cut transportation emissions: 2 days left > Reply-To: nzr(a)cleanair.org > > > > > > Donate > > Submit a comment to the Transportation & Climate Initiative by Friday 2/28 > Tell your state to reduce emissions and invest in a clean transportation system. > TAKE ACTION > MonValley Clean Air Coalition, > > > Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and other northeast states are considering a program that would transform the transportation sector in this part of the country through the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). Clean Air Council and other advocates across the region believe this is a critical step to improving transportation and addressing the climate crisis. > > > If designed correctly, this program could help to create safe roads for biking and walking, more frequent and reliable public transportation, greater access to electric vehicles, and a more equitable system with cleaner transportation options for everyone in the region. > > > Transportation is the country’s and region’s leading source of carbon emissions. Clean Air Council believes TCI will help to clean this sector up, but we need your help to move it forward. Fossil fuel companies are hard at work getting opponents to leave negative feedback in the program’s public comment portal, and we need environmentalists like you to help counteract that. > > > Click here to leave a comment supporting TCI and demand the most comprehensive program possible: we need improved transportation options, we need polluters to pay their fair share for the damage they are causing, and we need to act now! > > > Tips for comments: > Affiliation can be concerned resident/parent/voter/etc. > Request your state join the plan to reduce transportation emissions. > Explain why it is important to you that the states take action on the climate crisis now. > Demand a strong program that invests in public transportation, biking, walking, and prioritizes equity. > Leave a comment in support of a strong TCI program by this Friday, February 28th! > > > > Contact Nick Zuwiala-Rogers for more information about TCI and the Council’s work on this issue at nzr(a)cleanair.org. > > > Thank you for your action, > > > Joseph Otis Minott, Esq. > Executive Director and Chief Counsel > > > > Donate > > > > > > CONNECT WITH US > > > > > > > > > > PHILADELPHIA OFFICE > 135 S. 19TH STREET > SUITE 300 > PHILADELPHIA, PA, 19103 > PITTSBURGH OFFICE > 200 FIRST AVE. > SUITE 200 > PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 > > View this email in your browser > WILMINGTON OFFICE > 100 W. 10TH STREET > SUITE 1004 > WILMINGTON, DE, 19801 > Unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

WVU Climate Conversations Podcast: An Introduction to the Podcast | WVU Climate Conversations Podcast | thedaonline.com
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 22 Feb '20

22 Feb '20

https://anchor.fm/climate-conversations/episodes/An-Introduction-to-the-Pod… WVU Climate Conversations Podcast: An Introduction to the Podcast From the Climate Conversations, WVU Daily Athenaeum, February 19, 2020 Kathryn Williamson, teaching assistant professor of physics and astronomy at West Virginia University, gives us an introduction to the WVU Climate Conversations podcast. Inspired by Katharine Hayhoe’s TED talk that, “the most important thing you can do to fight climate change is to talk about it,” students in the West Virginia University Fall 2019 Honors book club host their own climate conversations with a variety of guests. Episode Transcription: Hi everyone. My name's Katherine Williamson. I'm a professor of physics and astronomy at West Virginia University, and I usually teach astronomy, but this semester I got the chance to lead a book club for the honors college. So the name of the book club, Climate Conversations, I chose after listening to Katharine Hayhoe's TED talk, which says that the most important thing you can do to fight climate change is to talk about it. So that was the aim of every one of our book club meetings. And that's the aim of this podcast, is to keep that conversation going. We all have something to bring to the table. We all have a perspective that is valuable no matter how old or young where we live. If it's rural or urban, whether we're male or female, regardless of any sort of identity we have, we have our voice. This podcast series is a result of students' final projects in the climate conversations book club. I had seven students we met. The second half of the semester in Fall 2019 we read three books. The first book was the Two Mile Time Machine, which is about ice cores, climate change, and our future. Written by Richard Alley, Two Mile Time Machine is really about how we know the science of climate change throughout the eons. But when we dig through ice cores, we can see what was the temperature hundreds of thousands of years ago, what was the carbon dioxide concentration. And then the second book we read was called Earth and Human Hands. That was written by a planetary scientist, David Grinspoon. He actually called into her book club meeting and we got to ask him lots of fascinating questions about the Anthropocene and how planetary science has really given us a perspective of our own planet by studying Venus and Mars and other planets, we can learn about home. So those first two books were very science heavy. As a scientist myself, I felt compelled to make sure all the students in the book club got a chance to talk about the science and how we know what we know. But those two books kinda, they didn't lead to as interesting conversations as our third book, which was called renewable. Written by Eileen Flanagan about her search for the subtitle as her one woman's search for simplicity, faithfulness, and hope. And she is a Quaker activist who had served in the peace Corps in Botswana and just found herself sort of in her midlife, struggling to live true to her values. And she became an activist who actually. Got arrested right outside of the white house because of pushing for more action on climate change. So that sort of personal responsibility, I think spoke to a lot of students. And with this conversation with this podcast, we want to just encourage everyone, all of our guests, we want to highlight their voice and just show an example of what it means to have a climate conversation. In this podcast, we'll have a guest from the West Virginia House of Delegates, we'll have a physicist. one of my colleagues here at WVU, we will have students talking about their experience, either studying abroad, studying history, or just trying to live sustainably on campus, and we'll even talk to some activists here in West Virginia from the Citizens' Climate Lobby. So we're getting a broad perspective, political, scientific, personal, and I hope there's something in this podcast series that you can relate to, feel inspired by, and maybe you'll have your own climate conversations after this.

1 0

University student organizations to rally against Longview Power Plant | WVU News | thedaonline.com
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 20 Feb '20

20 Feb '20

University student organizations to rally against Longview Power Plant Article by Gabriella Brown, WVU Daily Athenaeum, February 20, 2020 Student organizations will rally together at Woodburn Circle on Saturday at noon to protest against the construction of a natural gas and solar power plant. The organizations include WVU Sierra Club Coalition, Mountaineers for Green Design and the Sunrise Movement Greater Morgantown. Stephen Nelson, chief operating officer of Longview, said the $1.1 billion gas and solar power plant will use regionally produced Marcellus gas, and the solar facility will be one of the largest in Appalachia. Part of the project will be located on Longview’s property in Pennsylvania and part will be in Maidsville, West Virginia. Alexis Yost, a junior landscape architecture student and member of the Mountaineers for Green Design, said the construction of this plant could have irreversible environmental implications, including water contamination and the release of four million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. She said the construction of the plant poses its own set of problems, such as pipeline installation and deforestation. She said few people within the Morgantown community are aware of the situation. “The more you talk about it to people the more you realize no one knows that this is a really big deal,” Yost said. Jonah Kone, an Americorps Volunteer in Service to America in the WVU Land Use Clinic, said based on most scientific predictions, if carbon emissions are not reduced within 13 years, catastrophic impacts of climate change will become inescapable. He said this plant would simply add fuel to the fire. “For one, the Sierra Club and the Sunrise Movement are adamantly against any new fossil fuel infrastructure,” Kone said. “The reality is renewable energy can be competitive in West Virginia. We have a ton of untapped potential.” Kone said with this project in particular, one of the biggest problems is related to the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program, meaning the company agrees to pay a set stipend of fees to the county government in exchange for a property tax exemption. If approved, Kone said by being a part of the PILOT program, Longview would be granted a $200 million property tax and business inventory tax break. In order for this to pass, he said the Board of Education and the county commission will first need to approve it. Kone said the Sierra Club had its economics policy advisor do the numbers on the plan. He said the club found around 75% of the taxes the plants would normally be required to pay would be exempt. Nelson said Longview Power plans to take part in the PILOT program, and it will provide $2 million in PILOT payments and taxes in Monongalia County every year. He said this one of many benefit’s the plant will bring to Monongalia County, including creating thousands of jobs during construction and during the plant’s operation. “Employee compensation, direct, indirect and induced, will exceed $200 million,” Nelson said in an email. “In full operation, the gas and solar facilities will add approximately 35 new, high skill/high wage jobs with a payroll of around $2 million.” In response to the protest that will occur on campus, Nelson said Longview Power is committed to producing clean energy. “Longview is one of the cleanest burning coal-fired electric generation units in the world and our proposed gas facility, once operational, will be as well,” Nelson said. “We are committed to clean fossil and renewable development. We hope folks will take the time to learn more about us.” Yost said even if the rally has a small turnout, it is important to the environmentalist groups to get the word out about the situation. “If this still passes, young people need to vote,” Yost said. P.S. The proposed new plant would add 4 million tons per year of CO2. Source: https://www.thedaonline.com/news/university/university-student-organization…

1 0

Re: [MVCAC] Longview Power, LLC vs. APPALACHIAN STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 16 Feb '20

16 Feb '20

DOMINION POST EDITORIAL 16 FEBRUARY 2020 APOLOGY STILL OWED GROUPS FOR REMARKS County commissioner needs to set false accusations right It’s a lesson most of us learn the hard way on more than one occasion. Make your words soft and sweet because you never know when you’ll have to eat them. But more importantly, you want to check out your sources and get your facts straight first. In mid-January, Monongalia County Commissioner Tom Bloom’s words against an environmental foundation were hard and sour. Some of his frustration was a reaction to comments by a Sierra Club representative who questioned the C o m m i s s i o n’s transparency in negotiations with Longview Power. The Commission is negotiating a second payment in lieu of taxes deal with Longview Power for a solar and natural gas expansion to accompany its coal-fired power plant. Yet, when Bloom responded in a public meeting to those comments with accusations of a misappropriation of funds and maligning environmentalists for even receiving those funds, then threatening to forward the matter to the p ro s e c u t o r ’s office if certain conditions were not met, he stepped out of bounds. The funds in question are payments from Longview Power to the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation, an umbrella organization, created to administer and distribute funds Longview pays as a result of a challenge by the Sierra Club and two other environmental groups in Longview’s permitting process for its existing plant. A settlement with these groups resulted in Longview paying $500,000 for 10 years and $300,000 each year thereafter — $4 million to date — to be used for remediation efforts. Representatives from the Sierra Club, the other environmentalists and two nonvoting members, Longview and AMD Reclamation, comprise ASF’s board. Based on data provided by L o n g v i ew ’s president and CEO, Bloom asserted ASF had spent less than $355,400 on appropriate projects and had spent more than $1.2 million on “lawyers and other activities.” After reviewing the ASF’s public data on its website we cannot find a single fact that supports those accusation. The organizations that have received grants from these ASF funds all appear to fund appropriate activities. The ASF has provided grants totaling $2.2 million to fund appropriate activities and has not paid $1.2 million to lawyers. Period. ASF’s list of grants and tax forms are available to the public. And trying to cast these payments to ASF as “t a x p aye r ” funds or as shortchanging the school board is disingenuous, at best, wrongheaded, at worst. Yet, we have yet to hear a public apology to these groups from Bloom. It’s almost as if he’s not going to admit he’s wrong, because he didn’t look at the facts. But he’s not going to look at the facts, because he would have to admit he’s wrong. Our newspaper is well versed on making mistakes and having to clarify, correct and apologize for them. It’s better to err and apologize than to hope a problem just magically goes away. Especially, a public problem in a public venue caused by a public official. P.S. The President of Longview is the source of these accusations, which he repeated in a public meeting in Morgantown hosted by the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition. dgn

1 0

Your Rights at Stake: Come to Public Hearing on Anti-Protest Bill
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 08 Feb '20

08 Feb '20

https://ohvec.org/public-hrg-on-anti-protest-bill/ Your Rights at Stake: Come to Public Hearing on Anti-Protest Bill OVECFeb 6, 2020 Please come out for a public hearing on HB 4615, “The West Virginia Critical Infrastructure Protection Act,” which would create new criminal and civil penalties for conduct around gas and oil pipelines that could be applied to individuals and organizations involved in peaceful protests. Public Hearing on HB 4615, the Anti-Protest Bill 8:30 a.m., Monday February 10 in the House Chamber at the WV State Capitol 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia Can’t come? Call your delegate and state your opposition to HB 4615. Find out who your delegate is here and find their contact info here. In State Houses around the United States, bills are being introduced that would criminalize peaceful protest. The bills would dramatically increase civil fines for protesters, and increase criminal penalties for specific forms of protest, even for organizations and individuals supporting protest. In the states where the bills have become enacted to law, challenges are underway at great expense to all involved. Greenpeace protesters in Texas appear to be the first to have been charged under these types of bills, and could face two years in prison and fines of up to $10,000. The organization itself could face a fine of up to $500,000 under the new state law. The Texas bill could even impact journalists covering protests. South Dakota appears to be the first state where a legal challenge to one of these bills has had a successful outcome. People in Ohio have been resisting a similar bill there, and now this corporations-over-people bill has invaded West Virginia. HB 4615 is un-American. A basic right for Americans is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the country. Protest was a foundational tenant for American democracy, and since our foundling days, protest has been essential in raising awareness about injustices to bring about social reforms. HB 4615 is unconstitutional. The right to peacefully assemble is protected under the First Amendment. Peaceful protest works. Almost every day in America people come together peacefully to demonstrate and raise our voices about clean air and water, equal rights for women and people of color, fair wages and working hours, local land use, and other issues we believe in. We all deserve to live in a society where we can speak our mind without fear of punishment. This is free speech. If a company is polluting our water source or a politician is acting against the people, we should be able to speak up. This bill stops people from criticizing the powerful. HB 4615 reeks of ALEC’s* widespread efforts to clamp down on protests of all kinds. HB 4615 has heightened penalties for trespass onto “critical infrastructure” (one year in jail), and felony penalties for trespass with intent to “willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations” (three years in prison and a $1,000 fine). Actual damage, destruction, vandalism, defacing, tampering, impeding/inhibiting is a felony subject to five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. A person convicted of any of these offenses is also civilly liable to third parties for any personal or property damage that results. (*See: ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection.) The bill contains conspiracy provisions as well, creating liability for a person or organization that “conspires” to trespass (a $5,000 fine) or to damage/tamper/etc. (a $10,000 fine). Any entity that “compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates a person” for trespassing is also civilly liable for any personal or property damage. If you can’t make it to the public hearing, please do let your delegate know this bill is unacceptable. As it begins, you should be able to access a live stream of the public hearing by clicking on the “House of Delegates Chamber” audio or video link here. Please stand up for democracy! Come out to this hearing and/or comment to legislators, and then make plans to join us the following Monday, February 17, for Good Government Lobby Day. Register for that, here. Sent from my iPad

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC