More than 35,000 Rally to Protect Our Climate

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program, Washington, D.C.

On February 17, more than 35,000 braved the icy temperatures to take a message of hope for our climate to the President's doorstep. Marching in a human pipeline around the White House, people from across America and Canada also showed what real solidarity and neighborliness looks like.

Good neighbors don't push dirty energy projects such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that hurt communities, water and climate. Good neighbors and allies work together to bring leadership to tackle climate change and build a clean energy future. Good neighbors build solidarity around a common vision of the world we want for ourselves and our children: one without the threats of ever worsening climate change causing droughts, wildfires, floods and violent storms. That solidarity exists with the people of Canada and yet is overshadowed in the press by the latest attempt to push the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest for many reasons and should not be built. This is something that both Canadians and Americans are saying. At the rally today, Crystal Lameman from the Beaver Lake Cree Nation in Alberta put it very well: "We can't eat money and we can't drink oil." And Chief Jacqueline Thomas of the Yinka Dene Alliance in British Columbia said, "We have faith that people will do the right thing to protect Mother Earth."

Over time, the oil industry has found many ways to push the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. We have seen wildly exaggerated jobs numbers that falsely raised hope in areas that need work. We have seen arguments about energy security which were unbelievable considering this is a pipeline meant mostly for export. We have seen claims that if the US didn't take the tar sands it would go to Asia even though Canadians were saying "no" to pipelines to their west coast. And the latest? Today, a New York Times article focused on the foreign relations dynamic of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline decision. Posing the decision on this dirty energy project as something that is a choice between the environmental community and Canada is a false way of looking at it. Several points are worth considering:

• Canada and the United States have been friends and allies for a long time and will continue to be friends and allies long into the future. A single project that is in the interest of the oil industry, but not of Americans or Canadians, will not damage that relationship.
• Canada is already our largest supplier of oil. And Canada is our number one trade partner. A rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will not erase the massive trade connections that we already enjoy.
• The current Canadian federal government unapologetically speaks for the tar sands oil industry. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from Alberta and has moved Canada and the province of Alberta away from earlier Canadian goals of fighting climate change to developing the economy based on oil.
• Many provinces in Canada are concerned about expansion of tar sands and are working hard to diversify their energy sources with clean energy, as well as with energy efficiency and conservation.
• The general public in Canada is very concerned about climate change and many people and First Nations in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec who have experienced tar sands extraction, refining and the threat of tar sands pipelines are raising concerns in the same way that we in the United States are.

A rejection of the tar sands pipelines and of tar sands expansion is in the best interest of both Americans and Canadians. It will show tremendous leadership on the part of both of our countries to move together to tackle the climate change challenge by rejecting dirty fuels and moving forward with clean energy.

So let me come back to the wise words of Chief Jacqueline Thomas, immediate past Chief of the Saik'uz First Nation in British Columbia and co-founder Yinka Dene Alliance ("People of the Earth"): The Yinka Dene Alliance of British Columbia is seeing the harm from climate change to our peoples and our waters. We see the threat of taking tar sands out of the Earth and bringing it through our territories and over our rivers. The harm being done to people in the tar sands region can no longer be Canada's dirty secret. We don't have the billions of dollars that industry has. But we do have our faith that people will do the right thing to protect Mother Earth. The Forward on Climate Rally shows that we are not alone in the fight to stop tar sands expansion and tackle climate change.

Chief Jacqueline Thomas, Saik'uz First Nation, British Columbia

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/more_than_35000_canadian

President Obama, Did You Hear Us?: Let's Move #ForwardOnClimate!

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, I joined a crowd of more than 35,000 people including thousands of NRDC members and activists at the #ForwardOnClimate rally calling on President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, set carbon standards for dirty power plants, and move forward with clean energy solutions.

Photo credit: Sung Hwang, NRDC.

Hip Hop Caucus President & CEO Reverend Lennox Yearwood MCed the speaker program, and kept the crowd pumped up despite the frigid temperatures and strong, icy winds. Before setting out on our march around the White House, we heard from inspiring speakers including NRDC Trustee and Green for All Founder Van Jones; Chief Jacqueline Thomas, Immediate past Chief of the Saik'uz First Nation in British Columbia and co-founder of the Yinka Dene Alliance; Crystal Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation; Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; Latinovations Founder and Dewey Squre Group Principal Maria Cardona; Tom Steyer, Investor and founder of the Center for the Next Generation; Mike Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director; and 350.org President Bill McKibben.

Van Jones reminded us why all 35,000 of us were here at this rally: "You elected this President," he told us. "You made history... he needs to give you a chance to have a future. Stop being chumps." In addition to calling on us to continue fighting for our future, he called on President Obama to make the right decision, saying "all the good work you've done will be wiped away if you approve Keystone XL," and that approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be like jabbing a dirty needle into the U.S.

Crystal Lameman shared with us how tar sands development is affecting her community, and how industry is attempting to greenwash their dirty business. "Don't be fooled by their idea of what reclamation is," she said. "We can't eat money and we can't drink oil."

Keystone XL isn't the only tar sands pipeline currently under consideration that would facilitate an expansion of the tar sands - it is one of several. Chief Jacqueline Thomas spoke to us about Enbridge's Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline to British Columbia and the associated tanker traffic that would put the lands and waters of many First Nations at risk. More than 100 First Nations along the pipeline and tanker route have said their lands and waters are not for sale-that they will not allow the Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline or similar tar sands projects to cross their lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon. Chief Jacqueline Thomas's speech highlighted the importance of protecting our lands and waters: "If we destroy the Earth, we destroy ourselves."

Maria Cardona's speech brought home the urgency of not just rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and curbing tar sands extraction, but of regulating our dirty power plants: "For millions of Americans, particularly minorities, clean air regulations are life-saving regulations."

We're going to have to keep fighting, though, and keep urging Congress and President Obama to stand up to polluters. As Senator Whitehouse told us, "Congress is sleepwalking through this crisis, and it's time to wake up... We're going to have the president's back and he's going to have our back... Let us be unshakeable."

Today, we were not just unshakeable but unified - young people and old people, Nebraska ranchers, members of First Nations and Native American tribes, environmental groups, labor activists, doctors and nurses, entrepreneurs, investors, and many more.

We marched. We danced to the marching bands that mixed themselves in with the crowds. We chanted. (And I have a favorite new chant from today: "Hey Obama don't be silly, we don't want no oil spilly.") And we have hope.

The way Tom Steyer put it in his remarks at the rally, it may not be easy, but there really is no choice: "The Keystone [XL] pipeline is not a good investment. We can't afford 40 more years of dirty energy. Today we have to dare to say no to the Keystone [XL] pipeline and create a clean energy future."

So President Obama, I hope you're listening- because it's time to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, set carbon standards for dirty power plants, and move #ForwardOnClimate.

Photo credit: Josh Mogerman, NRDC.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/president_obama_did_you_hear_

Preparing Transportation for Climate Change: We Are Not Ready

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Washington, D.C.

This past Sunday at church, my daughter and I heard a story based on a children's book that delighted her and caught my attention too. You may have heard of it - "Ming Lo Moves the Mountain." It's a clever parable about a family frustrated at the effects of a mountain looming over their home, including lack of sunlight and occasional boulders crashing through the roof. They determine they have to move the mountain, and after consulting the village wise man repeatedly they finally figure out how to get the job done. They deconstruct their house, pack it up, close their eyes, and take enough steps back that the mountain magically becomes smaller!

It's a cute story which resonated with me because I've been thinking and reading up on climate preparedness. Being prepared requires, first of all, respect for Mother Nature so we can adjust to reality when necessary (i.e., move away from the mountain).

Based on my research so far, I can't help but conclude that we are not ready, at least not in the transportation sector. Far from it.

Photo of flooded NY subway stop after Superstorm Sandy hit, courtesy of MTA

First of all, it helps to diagnose the situation - just how far-reaching and intense might the effects of climate change be? As part of its latest, statutorily required initiative to determine this via a National Climate Assessment, the Department of Transportation held a two-day workshop last fall about the "Systemic Impacts of Climate on Transportation." Here's the final report from the series of presentations by government and academic analysts, followed by a facilitated discussion with our whole group. The presentations are sobering. Sea-level rise scenarios of 0.2 to 2.0 meters (anywhere from 8 inches to 6-and-a-half feet!) by 2100; more extreme events including droughts, floods, storms, heat and cold waves and hurricanes; as well as challenging "slow-motion" shifts like crop migration.

Some of this is echoed in the National Climate Assessment (NCA) draft itself (a nearly 1200-page report which is currently available for public comments here). The transportation chapter (pdf here) provides the first hint that we aren't prepared. There is some useful diagnostic information here, including the bald assertion that changing climatic conditions "are reducing [not will reduce; emphasis mine] the reliability and capacity of the U.S. transportation system in many ways." There's also a useful matrix for illustrating risks of climate-related impacts, with "magnitude of consequences" and "likelihood of occurrence" plotted out; this could be a diagnostic tool for state and local transportation agencies.

But other than some generic advice regarding adaptation and coping techniques, and a few interesting success stories -- no surprise that the transit agency in the progressive haven of Portlandia has already installed expansion joints for rail in vulnerable locations - the chapter is thin gruel when it comes to assessing preparedness at the local, state or national levels. We have to look elsewhere to determine how ready we might be.

So I searched the thousands of papers from this year's Transportation Research Board conference for ones on climate adaptation and preparedness. How many did I find? Just 5.

Transportation is a notoriously close-knit industry so as expected one of the papers was co-authored by one of the authors of the NCA transpo chapter, Professor Michael Meyer (the co-author's a grad student, Thomas Wall). The paper is a "synthesis" examination of infrastructure-specific adaptation frameworks in Australia, Canada, the EU, New Zealand, Scotland as well as the U.K. and U.S. An eye-catching conclusion is a "broad agreement on the limitations of the frameworks developed, and the barriers preventing their further development and implementation."

The other two that were most interesting include one explaining a "sensitivity matrix," a tool for gauging the vulnerability of infrastructure assets to damage based on possible storm surges on the Gulf Coast. The team at ICF consulting developed this with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, and it's consequently available on the FHWA site here), and unfortunately as the authors note it may not be applicable to public transportation assets.

The other one, entitled "Assessing Public Transportation Agencies' Climate Change Adaptation Activities and Needs," is all about public transportation, and is co-authored by (who else?) two Portland State University professors. In addition to an inventory of climate adaptation projects funded by smart staff at the Federal Transit Administration (I wrote about FTA's work in previous blog entry), the paper reports on the results of a survey of public transportation agencies coordinate with the American Public Transportation Association (or APTA; NRDC is proud to be a member of it). 64 transit agencies from 28 states filled out a survey, and the findings are frankly alarming. Fully 92 percent say they've already been impacted just in the last decade by major storm events, and 60 percent "felt it was somewhat important for their organizations to prepare for future impacts of climate change..." and 28 percent "indicated that their organization feels that climate change is currently impacting their community..."

The good news is that at least 38 percent of agencies are "collecting cost data and/or other information and data about weather events or climate projections to assess the impact on their infrastructure and operations" and 57 percent have "identified assets and infrastructure that are vulnerable to extreme weather events." But "only 21 respondents indicated that their agency was currently involved in adaptation climate change planning activities" and "nearly 34 percent of the agencies are not collecting or using any data related to extreme weather or climate change." [emphases mine] The three big barriers to doing more identified by those surveyed include lack of funding, low institutional priority and need for better data and tools. And these are the subset of 300 agencies surveyed who chose to respond, self-selection that probably entails a higher degree of commitment and preparation than those who ignored the questionnaire.

To be clear, there are examples of leaders in climate preparedness as profiled in the NCA as well as in resources such as the National Academies new report on Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative (report and handy, brief executive summary available here) and U.Va. Professor Tim Beatley's well-written book Planning for Coastal Resilience. And in response to hurricane Sandy, New York City and State have pulled together impressive plans including one looking way out to the year 2100.

The bottom line though is that laggards outnumber leaders in climate preparedness, and policymakers must get to work in order to change that for the sake of our transportation system's future.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlovaas/preparing_transportation_for

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC

Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.

New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.

That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.

You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.

Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.

That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute

But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.

Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."

On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.

We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.

That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?

For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Governor Cuomo's New York Green Bank: a Triple Crown for the Clean Energy Economy

Doug Sims, Energy Project Finance Specialist, New York

Governor Cuomo's New York Green Bank: a Triple Crown for the Clean Energy Economy

Today, in his State of the State address, Governor Cuomo announced that New York State will be forming a Green Bank with $1 billion of initial capital. The bank will be spearheaded by Richard Kauffman, a veteran of Washington, Wall Street and the clean tech world who has unparalleled experience, vision and credibility in this area. This is a coup and, more broadly, the bank represents a major step forward in expanding New York's clean energy economy and decreasing global warming emissions. It solidifies New York's national leadership position in clean energy.

NRDC stands ready to assist the Governor's office, NYSERDA, other state agencies, banks, investors and other stakeholders to make the bank a reality and a success.

Simply put, the New York Green Bank (I'll call it the "NYGB") will use its funds to advance the clean energy economy, investing alongside private investors to make low cost financing available for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The NYGB will be the second of its kind in the United States, after that of neighboring Connecticut, which pioneered the concept in 2011. But because of the size of the New York market and New York's outsized influence as a state, the Empire State's green bank could stimulate a larger trend, transforming the national clean energy landscape.

In the printed version of his speech, the Governor notes that, "While the effects of climate change are sufficient reason to go forward on this front, the added promise of uniquely beneficial job creation and a diminished reliance on external energy sources make the pursuit of a clean economy a critically important goal."

With this statement, the Governor perfectly articulates the triple crown of improved energy, economy and environment that the Green Bank opportunity represents.

First, energy. As more clean energy technology gets deployed, it has been getting more cost competitive and efficient and will continue to do so. But there is still a cost gap with fossil energy technologies because they do not pay the costs of their carbon and other pollution. Low cost financing further reduces the cost of clean energy technologies today, accelerating the process of closing that gap. And more clean energy means more energy security, i.e., less exposure to the price volatility and supply insecurity of fossil energy.

Second, environment. The Governor notes in his speech that in spite of the over $1 billion New York spends on subsidies for renewables and energy efficiency annually, its deployment goals aren't being met. This means that climate change mitigation goals aren't being met, either. The Governor presciently says in his speech that subsidies are important but not enough. When the NYGB makes low cost financing available to a project that is receiving a subsidy from one of New York's existing programs, the size of the subsidy can be smaller. This allows New Yorkers to get more clean energy for the same dollar of subsidy, in a classic win-win. And since the NYGB will earn interest and fees and get the principal of any loans paid back, over time it can reinvest its funds into more clean energy projects at no additional cost to the public, and/or send the public dividends.

Third, economy. The Green Bank will increase activity in the clean tech sector in New York State. Increasing the availability of low cost financing means increasing the amount of clean energy projects and their related jobs and capital investments. The NYGB will act as a fulcrum for the maturation and transformation of the clean energy economy in New York State, helping to remove market barriers by collecting data on project performance, driving standardization of contracts and improving the flow of information to market participants. More efficiency and fewer transaction costs also mean more projects at a lower per unit cost.

We congratulate the Governor on his continued leadership and look forward to working with his team on this unprecedented opportunity.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dsims/governor_cuomos_new_york_green