Monthly Archives: March 2016

Europe’s biggest polluters land €24 billion carbon windfall

Leave a reply

A new analysis of carbon emissions allowances shows how some of Europe’s most polluting industries have earned a €24 billion windfall from 2008 to 2014, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

This is the main policy used across the EU to ‘cost-effectively’ reduce CO2 emissions across industry.

The findings in a report Calculation of additional profits of sectors and firms from the EU ETS, from independent environmental analysts CE Delft, adds momentum to calls from MEPs and campaigners for an overhaul of the policy ahead of the negotiations to revisit the ETS rules this year at EU level.

The sectors profiting most from pollution payouts have been iron and steel, cement, refineries and petrochemicals. The sum netted by industry over the period is more than 10 times the amount the EU has spent on ‘innovation’ under the EU ETS.

With highly profitable companies such as ArcelorMittal and Lafarge benefiting from the windfall, the report adds to existing criticism of the scheme.

The report identifies three ways industry has secured windfall profits through the scheme:

  • Companies were awarded too many free emissions allowances that they could sell for a profit in the market;
  • Companies bought cheaper international offsets to comply with their targets, and were able to sell remaining free allowances for a profit on the market.
  • Companies made their consumers pay for non-existent carbon costs (by passing through the ‘costs’ of freely obtained emission allowances).

However, given that the analysis – commissioned by Carbon Market Watch – was limited to 19 of the EU’s 28 Member States, the actual figure of subsidy awarded is likely to be significantly higher across the region as a whole.

The research also underscores the importance of ongoing negotiations to change the current rules, highlighting how outcomes must prevent further exploitation of the EU ETS at the expense of European taxpayers.

Femke de Jong, EU Policy Director at Carbon Market Watch explains: “Instead of making the polluter pay, energy-intensive companies are allowed to pollute for free under the EU ETS. Even worse, they are able to profit from their pollution to the tune of billions. It’s European taxpayers that are picking up this bill as governments forego scarce public money.”

‘Carbon leakage’ costs are being passed on as profit

Findings also highlight that ‘carbon leakage’ claims by polluters, often used as means to justify special treatment for various industrial sectors – and allocation of the free permits – are unsubstantiated.

The term ‘carbon leakage’ refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate change policies to lower their production costs. However, the report demonstrates that the EU ETS has been a profit, rather a cost, for industry.

The report moreover shows that most of the industrial sectors pass on at least part of the ‘cost’ of free allowances in product prices in which case they are at lower to no risk of carbon leakage according to the ETS directive. “If costs are passed through, free allocation is not a good instrument to combat eventual carbon leakage” says Sander de Bruyn, Senior Economist at CE Delft.

So far, no evidence has been found for production displacement due to the EU ETS. Energy intensive companies themselves have also reported to their shareholders that competitiveness risks of the EU ETS are not an issue for them.

Femke de Jong, adds: “Today’s findings bust open the industry myth of carbon leakage. There has never been evidence to back-up the relocation threats made by industry. In light of the Paris Agreement that helps to level the playing field to cover over 95% of global emissions, the concept of overgenerous allocation of free pollution permits in the EU ETS can no longer be entertained by decision makers.”

The policy needs a rapid overhaul

Having given out 11 billion free pollution permits over the 7 years in question, Member States missed out on at least €137 billion in auctioning revenues. Giving away free emission allowances also reduces the incentive of companies to produce more efficiently or to invest in breakthrough technologies that reduce CO2.

“The EU ETS reform must help achieve the decarbonisation objectives of the European economy whilst allowing a “just transition” for all workers without undermining quality of life or generating windfall profit“, comments Montserrat Mir, ETUC Confederal Secretary in charge of climate and energy issues.

“The EU must adopt a real low-carbon industrial policy and take appropriate measures to ensure the EU ETS effectively contributes to a socially fair transition to a low-carbon economy.”

In the coming months, European policymakers are revisiting the rules under which industrial sectors are able to receive free pollution permits. MEP Jytte Guteland, the S&D spokesperson on the EU ETS revision commented:

“Europe can no longer afford the windfall profits that have occurred during the current system. The overall ambition of the ETS must be to gradually move towards ever increasing auctioning, as this is the underpinning logic of the system and a fair solution for market actors.”

MEP Bas Eickhout, the Greens / EFA spokesperson on the EU ETS added: “Environmental and health related costs induced by industrial activities should not be borne by society, but by the ones that cause them. This is not at all the case under the current EU ETS. On the contrary, companies make huge profits out of the pollution permits which they received for free.

“There is only one solution: the handing out of free emission allowances has to be phased out rapidly.”

 

 

Source: Carbon Market Watch.

 

Europe’s biggest polluters land €24 billion carbon windfall

Leave a reply

A new analysis of carbon emissions allowances shows how some of Europe’s most polluting industries have earned a €24 billion windfall from 2008 to 2014, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

This is the main policy used across the EU to ‘cost-effectively’ reduce CO2 emissions across industry.

The findings in a report Calculation of additional profits of sectors and firms from the EU ETS, from independent environmental analysts CE Delft, adds momentum to calls from MEPs and campaigners for an overhaul of the policy ahead of the negotiations to revisit the ETS rules this year at EU level.

The sectors profiting most from pollution payouts have been iron and steel, cement, refineries and petrochemicals. The sum netted by industry over the period is more than 10 times the amount the EU has spent on ‘innovation’ under the EU ETS.

With highly profitable companies such as ArcelorMittal and Lafarge benefiting from the windfall, the report adds to existing criticism of the scheme.

The report identifies three ways industry has secured windfall profits through the scheme:

  • Companies were awarded too many free emissions allowances that they could sell for a profit in the market;
  • Companies bought cheaper international offsets to comply with their targets, and were able to sell remaining free allowances for a profit on the market.
  • Companies made their consumers pay for non-existent carbon costs (by passing through the ‘costs’ of freely obtained emission allowances).

However, given that the analysis – commissioned by Carbon Market Watch – was limited to 19 of the EU’s 28 Member States, the actual figure of subsidy awarded is likely to be significantly higher across the region as a whole.

The research also underscores the importance of ongoing negotiations to change the current rules, highlighting how outcomes must prevent further exploitation of the EU ETS at the expense of European taxpayers.

Femke de Jong, EU Policy Director at Carbon Market Watch explains: “Instead of making the polluter pay, energy-intensive companies are allowed to pollute for free under the EU ETS. Even worse, they are able to profit from their pollution to the tune of billions. It’s European taxpayers that are picking up this bill as governments forego scarce public money.”

‘Carbon leakage’ costs are being passed on as profit

Findings also highlight that ‘carbon leakage’ claims by polluters, often used as means to justify special treatment for various industrial sectors – and allocation of the free permits – are unsubstantiated.

The term ‘carbon leakage’ refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate change policies to lower their production costs. However, the report demonstrates that the EU ETS has been a profit, rather a cost, for industry.

The report moreover shows that most of the industrial sectors pass on at least part of the ‘cost’ of free allowances in product prices in which case they are at lower to no risk of carbon leakage according to the ETS directive. “If costs are passed through, free allocation is not a good instrument to combat eventual carbon leakage” says Sander de Bruyn, Senior Economist at CE Delft.

So far, no evidence has been found for production displacement due to the EU ETS. Energy intensive companies themselves have also reported to their shareholders that competitiveness risks of the EU ETS are not an issue for them.

Femke de Jong, adds: “Today’s findings bust open the industry myth of carbon leakage. There has never been evidence to back-up the relocation threats made by industry. In light of the Paris Agreement that helps to level the playing field to cover over 95% of global emissions, the concept of overgenerous allocation of free pollution permits in the EU ETS can no longer be entertained by decision makers.”

The policy needs a rapid overhaul

Having given out 11 billion free pollution permits over the 7 years in question, Member States missed out on at least €137 billion in auctioning revenues. Giving away free emission allowances also reduces the incentive of companies to produce more efficiently or to invest in breakthrough technologies that reduce CO2.

“The EU ETS reform must help achieve the decarbonisation objectives of the European economy whilst allowing a “just transition” for all workers without undermining quality of life or generating windfall profit“, comments Montserrat Mir, ETUC Confederal Secretary in charge of climate and energy issues.

“The EU must adopt a real low-carbon industrial policy and take appropriate measures to ensure the EU ETS effectively contributes to a socially fair transition to a low-carbon economy.”

In the coming months, European policymakers are revisiting the rules under which industrial sectors are able to receive free pollution permits. MEP Jytte Guteland, the S&D spokesperson on the EU ETS revision commented:

“Europe can no longer afford the windfall profits that have occurred during the current system. The overall ambition of the ETS must be to gradually move towards ever increasing auctioning, as this is the underpinning logic of the system and a fair solution for market actors.”

MEP Bas Eickhout, the Greens / EFA spokesperson on the EU ETS added: “Environmental and health related costs induced by industrial activities should not be borne by society, but by the ones that cause them. This is not at all the case under the current EU ETS. On the contrary, companies make huge profits out of the pollution permits which they received for free.

“There is only one solution: the handing out of free emission allowances has to be phased out rapidly.”

 

 

Source: Carbon Market Watch.

 

Europe’s biggest polluters land €24 billion carbon windfall

Leave a reply

A new analysis of carbon emissions allowances shows how some of Europe’s most polluting industries have earned a €24 billion windfall from 2008 to 2014, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

This is the main policy used across the EU to ‘cost-effectively’ reduce CO2 emissions across industry.

The findings in a report Calculation of additional profits of sectors and firms from the EU ETS, from independent environmental analysts CE Delft, adds momentum to calls from MEPs and campaigners for an overhaul of the policy ahead of the negotiations to revisit the ETS rules this year at EU level.

The sectors profiting most from pollution payouts have been iron and steel, cement, refineries and petrochemicals. The sum netted by industry over the period is more than 10 times the amount the EU has spent on ‘innovation’ under the EU ETS.

With highly profitable companies such as ArcelorMittal and Lafarge benefiting from the windfall, the report adds to existing criticism of the scheme.

The report identifies three ways industry has secured windfall profits through the scheme:

  • Companies were awarded too many free emissions allowances that they could sell for a profit in the market;
  • Companies bought cheaper international offsets to comply with their targets, and were able to sell remaining free allowances for a profit on the market.
  • Companies made their consumers pay for non-existent carbon costs (by passing through the ‘costs’ of freely obtained emission allowances).

However, given that the analysis – commissioned by Carbon Market Watch – was limited to 19 of the EU’s 28 Member States, the actual figure of subsidy awarded is likely to be significantly higher across the region as a whole.

The research also underscores the importance of ongoing negotiations to change the current rules, highlighting how outcomes must prevent further exploitation of the EU ETS at the expense of European taxpayers.

Femke de Jong, EU Policy Director at Carbon Market Watch explains: “Instead of making the polluter pay, energy-intensive companies are allowed to pollute for free under the EU ETS. Even worse, they are able to profit from their pollution to the tune of billions. It’s European taxpayers that are picking up this bill as governments forego scarce public money.”

‘Carbon leakage’ costs are being passed on as profit

Findings also highlight that ‘carbon leakage’ claims by polluters, often used as means to justify special treatment for various industrial sectors – and allocation of the free permits – are unsubstantiated.

The term ‘carbon leakage’ refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate change policies to lower their production costs. However, the report demonstrates that the EU ETS has been a profit, rather a cost, for industry.

The report moreover shows that most of the industrial sectors pass on at least part of the ‘cost’ of free allowances in product prices in which case they are at lower to no risk of carbon leakage according to the ETS directive. “If costs are passed through, free allocation is not a good instrument to combat eventual carbon leakage” says Sander de Bruyn, Senior Economist at CE Delft.

So far, no evidence has been found for production displacement due to the EU ETS. Energy intensive companies themselves have also reported to their shareholders that competitiveness risks of the EU ETS are not an issue for them.

Femke de Jong, adds: “Today’s findings bust open the industry myth of carbon leakage. There has never been evidence to back-up the relocation threats made by industry. In light of the Paris Agreement that helps to level the playing field to cover over 95% of global emissions, the concept of overgenerous allocation of free pollution permits in the EU ETS can no longer be entertained by decision makers.”

The policy needs a rapid overhaul

Having given out 11 billion free pollution permits over the 7 years in question, Member States missed out on at least €137 billion in auctioning revenues. Giving away free emission allowances also reduces the incentive of companies to produce more efficiently or to invest in breakthrough technologies that reduce CO2.

“The EU ETS reform must help achieve the decarbonisation objectives of the European economy whilst allowing a “just transition” for all workers without undermining quality of life or generating windfall profit“, comments Montserrat Mir, ETUC Confederal Secretary in charge of climate and energy issues.

“The EU must adopt a real low-carbon industrial policy and take appropriate measures to ensure the EU ETS effectively contributes to a socially fair transition to a low-carbon economy.”

In the coming months, European policymakers are revisiting the rules under which industrial sectors are able to receive free pollution permits. MEP Jytte Guteland, the S&D spokesperson on the EU ETS revision commented:

“Europe can no longer afford the windfall profits that have occurred during the current system. The overall ambition of the ETS must be to gradually move towards ever increasing auctioning, as this is the underpinning logic of the system and a fair solution for market actors.”

MEP Bas Eickhout, the Greens / EFA spokesperson on the EU ETS added: “Environmental and health related costs induced by industrial activities should not be borne by society, but by the ones that cause them. This is not at all the case under the current EU ETS. On the contrary, companies make huge profits out of the pollution permits which they received for free.

“There is only one solution: the handing out of free emission allowances has to be phased out rapidly.”

 

 

Source: Carbon Market Watch.

 

Europe’s biggest polluters land €24 billion carbon windfall

Leave a reply

A new analysis of carbon emissions allowances shows how some of Europe’s most polluting industries have earned a €24 billion windfall from 2008 to 2014, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

This is the main policy used across the EU to ‘cost-effectively’ reduce CO2 emissions across industry.

The findings in a report Calculation of additional profits of sectors and firms from the EU ETS, from independent environmental analysts CE Delft, adds momentum to calls from MEPs and campaigners for an overhaul of the policy ahead of the negotiations to revisit the ETS rules this year at EU level.

The sectors profiting most from pollution payouts have been iron and steel, cement, refineries and petrochemicals. The sum netted by industry over the period is more than 10 times the amount the EU has spent on ‘innovation’ under the EU ETS.

With highly profitable companies such as ArcelorMittal and Lafarge benefiting from the windfall, the report adds to existing criticism of the scheme.

The report identifies three ways industry has secured windfall profits through the scheme:

  • Companies were awarded too many free emissions allowances that they could sell for a profit in the market;
  • Companies bought cheaper international offsets to comply with their targets, and were able to sell remaining free allowances for a profit on the market.
  • Companies made their consumers pay for non-existent carbon costs (by passing through the ‘costs’ of freely obtained emission allowances).

However, given that the analysis – commissioned by Carbon Market Watch – was limited to 19 of the EU’s 28 Member States, the actual figure of subsidy awarded is likely to be significantly higher across the region as a whole.

The research also underscores the importance of ongoing negotiations to change the current rules, highlighting how outcomes must prevent further exploitation of the EU ETS at the expense of European taxpayers.

Femke de Jong, EU Policy Director at Carbon Market Watch explains: “Instead of making the polluter pay, energy-intensive companies are allowed to pollute for free under the EU ETS. Even worse, they are able to profit from their pollution to the tune of billions. It’s European taxpayers that are picking up this bill as governments forego scarce public money.”

‘Carbon leakage’ costs are being passed on as profit

Findings also highlight that ‘carbon leakage’ claims by polluters, often used as means to justify special treatment for various industrial sectors – and allocation of the free permits – are unsubstantiated.

The term ‘carbon leakage’ refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate change policies to lower their production costs. However, the report demonstrates that the EU ETS has been a profit, rather a cost, for industry.

The report moreover shows that most of the industrial sectors pass on at least part of the ‘cost’ of free allowances in product prices in which case they are at lower to no risk of carbon leakage according to the ETS directive. “If costs are passed through, free allocation is not a good instrument to combat eventual carbon leakage” says Sander de Bruyn, Senior Economist at CE Delft.

So far, no evidence has been found for production displacement due to the EU ETS. Energy intensive companies themselves have also reported to their shareholders that competitiveness risks of the EU ETS are not an issue for them.

Femke de Jong, adds: “Today’s findings bust open the industry myth of carbon leakage. There has never been evidence to back-up the relocation threats made by industry. In light of the Paris Agreement that helps to level the playing field to cover over 95% of global emissions, the concept of overgenerous allocation of free pollution permits in the EU ETS can no longer be entertained by decision makers.”

The policy needs a rapid overhaul

Having given out 11 billion free pollution permits over the 7 years in question, Member States missed out on at least €137 billion in auctioning revenues. Giving away free emission allowances also reduces the incentive of companies to produce more efficiently or to invest in breakthrough technologies that reduce CO2.

“The EU ETS reform must help achieve the decarbonisation objectives of the European economy whilst allowing a “just transition” for all workers without undermining quality of life or generating windfall profit“, comments Montserrat Mir, ETUC Confederal Secretary in charge of climate and energy issues.

“The EU must adopt a real low-carbon industrial policy and take appropriate measures to ensure the EU ETS effectively contributes to a socially fair transition to a low-carbon economy.”

In the coming months, European policymakers are revisiting the rules under which industrial sectors are able to receive free pollution permits. MEP Jytte Guteland, the S&D spokesperson on the EU ETS revision commented:

“Europe can no longer afford the windfall profits that have occurred during the current system. The overall ambition of the ETS must be to gradually move towards ever increasing auctioning, as this is the underpinning logic of the system and a fair solution for market actors.”

MEP Bas Eickhout, the Greens / EFA spokesperson on the EU ETS added: “Environmental and health related costs induced by industrial activities should not be borne by society, but by the ones that cause them. This is not at all the case under the current EU ETS. On the contrary, companies make huge profits out of the pollution permits which they received for free.

“There is only one solution: the handing out of free emission allowances has to be phased out rapidly.”

 

 

Source: Carbon Market Watch.

 

Chancellor is right to act on sugar. Next, air pollution!

Leave a reply

George Osborne did an excellent thing in his Budget this year. He made a powerful moral case for action to improve the lives of people, particularly children.

He faced down relentless lobbying pressure from some of the country’s biggest corporations. And he used the huge power of his Treasury to take action.

His sugar tax won’t solve obesity on its own, but it is nonetheless a great start. It will put real pressure on manufacturers to do far more to reduce sugar in their products – seven teaspoons in a can of coke!

And because he has also linked the tax to spending, it will raise cash to improve sports facilities in our schools. It shouldn’t be called a ‘sugar tax’, but rather ‘sport not sugar’.

This sort of joined-up, in-the-public-interest initiative is exactly what a reforming Chancellor should be doing more of. It was one of the few measures in this year’s  Budget which genuinely spoke to Mr Osborne’s rhetoric about the need for a Budget for the long-term, and action for the next generation.

His sugar initiative does not balance out all of the other areas where action did not deliver for the next generation, which is why organisations like the Children’s Society were so scathing of the Budget overall.

But his sugary drink initiative is something that Mr Osborne should get credit for, and encouragement to do more of the same.

Action needed to tackle air pollution

So, what could Mr Osborne do at the next Budget to build on this ‘sport not sugar’ approach?

The most obvious one is around the shocking levels of air pollution which are killing tens of thousands of people prematurely every year, and damaging the lungs and hearts of almost every child in every big town and city up and down the country.

This problem is mainly down to choking diesel fumes from road traffic. So, the Chancellor could introduce a higher road tax for new diesel cars and vans – as proposed on The Ecologist by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange.

Under their scheme, new diesel vehicles would pay £800 for their first year’s road tax as a penalty to discourage sales, while a scrappage scheme clearly targetted at air pollution would pay a similar sum to get the worst and most polluting diesel cars, vans, buses and taxis off our busy roads.

On your bike

George Osborne could take advantage of low oil prices to increase fuel duty by a penny. That would raise £2,200 million, which the Chancellor could plough into schemes to make walking and cycling safer in every city. Many parents will not allow their children to cycle to school, because of the horrendous traffic danger. I won’t let mine.

Making cycling and walking safer will mean fewer children being driven to school – cutting down on rush-hour congestion, improving air quality, making children fitter, freeing more parents from the school run and giving kids more independence. Whether you’re on the left or right of politics, surely everyone would want that?

Choking air, heavy traffic, dangerous streets: these are things that almost all adults and children see, feel, taste and endure every day in our cities and towns. A reforming Chancellor who willing to use the huge powers of the Treasury to deal with these problems would be making a massive improvement to the quality of life of all of us, but the next generation in particular. 

The Chancellor’s next Budget should build on his ‘sport not sugar’ initiative, and use this approach to tackle the other great scandals in modern British life. Tackling the outrage of the UK’s killer air pollution is just one of these – but it would certainly be a great place to start. 

 

 

Simon Bullock is senior energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. He tweets @simonbullock.

Author’s note: This article does not constitute support for the Chancellor’s approach to climate change at Budget 2016!

More information: Friends of the Earth’s in-depth reaction to the Chancellor’s 2016 Budget.

 

Berta Caceres colleague murdered in Honduras

Leave a reply

Nelson Garcia, a leading member of COPINH, the same indigenous rights group as murdered activist Berta Caceres, was assassinated in Honduras yesterday.

The murder took place during a violent eviction of 150 families from community-occupied land at Rio Chiquito in the town of Rio Lindo, Cortés Department, attended by 100 policemen, 20 military police, 10 soldiers and and several DGIC (Direccion General de Investigactiones Criminales) officers.

“We regret to inform that Comrade Nelson Garcia was killed when he arrived at his mother’s house for lunch, after having spent the morning helping to move the belongings of families evicted from the community of Rio Chiquito”, reports COPINH, the Council of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras.

Garcia was shot four times in the head by unknown gunmen. But given the close proximity of so many security forces it is hard to see how the murder could have been committed other than with official support, complicity, collusion or participation.

The eviction began early yesterday using tractors and heavy machinery to destroy wooden houses where the families had lived for nearly two years. The tractors were also used to destroy community gardens and crops of cassava, sugar cane, banana and corn.

“These attacks today are in addition to the large number of threats, attacks, killings, intimidation and criminalization directed against COPINH”, according to a statement. “All these attacks are part of a plan of extermination against our organization and we call on the national and international levels to fight the same solidarity.”

Long history of official violence

Nelson Garcia was an active member of COPINH, a leader of the Rio Chiquito community and a defender of its right to remain in its communal living space. COPINH has been active in the area for 22 years undertaking advocacy, construction work and community defence activities.

He is now the third COPINH leader to be killed, along with numerous other members and activists. Berta Caceres’s fellow Copinh leader Tomás García was shot dead by a military officer in a protest in 2013.

Since the murder of Caceres in La Esperanza on 3rd March, says COPINH, Honduran authorities have demonstrated “zero interest” in investigating the crime or in protecting other members of the organisation, whose leadership has instead been harrassed while those making threats against them remain uninvestigated.

In another incident security guards at the controversial four-tier Agua Zarca hydroelectric project on the Rio Gualcarque threatened demonstrators with live shotgun blasts. Fortunately no injuries resulted on that occasion.

The murders of community activists at Rio Chiquito are just a small part of a much wider pattern of violent attacks against human and environment rights activists in Honduras that followed the US-backed 2009 coup d’etat that overthrew the progressive left wing government of Manuel Zelaya.

Over 100 campaigners were killed in Honduras between 2010 and 2014, according to Global Witness in its study ‘How Many More?‘. It said a disproportionately high number of them were from indigenous communities who resisted development projects or the encroachment of farms on their territory.

Agua Zarca backers withdraw their support

The assassination of Berta Caceres, and now Nelson Garcia, has focused international scrutiny on the Honduran government and supporters of projects like the Agua Zarca dam project.

China’s Sinohydro and the World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, had already pulled out of the project before Caceres’s murder. They have now been followed by FMO, the Dutch development financier, which today decided to “suspend all activities in Honduras, effective immediately” and withdraw its $15m loan offer.

FMO said in a statement: “This means that we will not engage in new projects or commitments and that no disbursements will be made, including the Agua Zarca project.” Finnfund, the second European financier involved in Agua Zarca with $5m committed, suspended its support as well.

The Central-American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) is now under increasing pressure to suspend its support for Agua Zarca along with German companies Siemens and Voith. With $24 million, CABEI extended the biggest loan for the dam project.

Last Monday two activists, Jake Dacks and Nico Udu-gama, scaled an art installation in front of the office of the USAID’s information office in Washington DC as part of protest calling on the US government agency to cut its support for Agua Zarca and unfurled a banner reading “USAID stop funding murder in Honduras!”

“We stand in solidarity with our dear comrade Berta and the Lenca people and all Hondurans who are valiantly resisting displacement in their territory”, said activist Jake Dacks.

“If USAID is serious about involving communities in development, they will listen to the Lenca people and stop working the DESA-Agua Zarca hydroelectric project immediately.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

Meet the Koch-affiliated fracker behind Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Leave a reply

The influential oil and gas executive advising US presidential candidate Marco Rubio has for years used his political clout to lobby against tougher rules across shale country, arguing they are unjustified.

Last month the Florida Senator, darling of the Republican establishment, drafted Larry Nichols, the founder and former CEO of fracking firm Devon Energy, to shape his campaign’s energy policy.

Reports in the US press claim Devon spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to overturn a Texas town’s decision to ban fracking, and used its political connections to resist calls for emissions and wastewater regulations in Oklahoma.

With an estimated enterprise value of $32 billion, the Oklahoma-based Devon Energy is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in the US. Nichols is credited with the company’s rise into the Fortune 500, having founded the firm with his father in the 1970s and spotted the opportunity posed by hydraulic fracturing in the 1990s.

Since then Nichols has become one of the most politically active oil execs in the country, serving as chairman for the American Petroleum Institute and directing the American Natural Gas Alliance lobby group. He’s also a member of the political donor network established by the infamous Koch brothers.

Before he joined Team Rubio, Nichols gave $50,000 to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for his 2012 recall vote, and oversaw a $50,000 donation from Devon to the Wisconsin branch of the anti-tax Super PAC Club for Growth – which was supporting Walker.

In this election cycle, he’s so far given $50,000 to Conservative Solutions, the PAC backing Rubio. Meanwhile, according to Open Secrets data, Devon has spent more than $16 million on lobbying since 1998 – recently it’s been spending around $2 million a year.

Oklahoma

Let’s start in Nichols’ home-state, where Devon is especially powerful. In perhaps the firm’s most egregious use of political pressure, Devon was revealed by the New York Times to have leaned on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to write to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in defense of the oil and gas sector.

Pruitt told the EPA that federal regulators were massively overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by natural gas extraction in his state, but the three-page letter he sent was actually written by Devon’s lawyers and given to him by Devon’s lobbying chief.

A senior exec at Devon is reported as saying: “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both EPA and the White House.” Following the NYT investigation, Nichols was defiant. In conversation with the Tulsa World newspaper, he said:

“Our industry thought their study was deeply flawed from the methodology. We had meetings with the EPA director and other people in the EPA. We attended some meetings with the White House. We had meetings with senators and congressmen and attorneys general and anyone else that would meet us.”

Fracking earthquakes

Devon hasn’t just used its influence to criticize what it regards as flawed pollution studies, but also seismic research the firm considers groundless.

Oklahoma has been hit with an unprecedented wave of earthquakes in recent years, a development that has been widely attributed to fracking operations in the state – specifically wastewater injections into deep underground wells.

Back in 2011, Arkansas and Ohio were both taking actions to curb the practice. But Oklahoma resisted. An investigation by EnergyWire showed just how powerful Devon was in its home state, where its talking points were used by the fossil fuel funded Governor Mary Fallin to reject the link between increasing fracking activity and increased seismic activity.

The Governor’s office had even turned to Devon for help in responding to a series of earthquakes near Oklahoma City. In the wake of that incident Nichols sought to dispel any connection to oil and gas extraction.

But Devon’s presence is felt well beyond even the Governor’s mansion – all the way into the labs of the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). First there’s funding. Devon, who bought the OGS a new core viewing room in 2014, is one of a number of oil and gas companies spending to support the scientific organisation.

Larry Grillott, Dean of the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, said of the OGS: “We do get a lot of support from the energy industry.”

Second there’s the revolving door. Just a cursory look at the ties between the OGS and Devon turned up a geologist who went from Devon to the OGS and back to Devon over the course of a few years.

And just for the record: The OGS continued to recommend further studies into the state’s quakes and refused to issue any report on the link to oil and gas drilling until years later.

Made in Texas? Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Devon is also a major player in Texas, where it is the largest leaser in the Barnett Shale. Where it has been especially involved is Denton, the town that voted to ban fracking in 2014. Ultimately that ban was overturned by the Texas legislature, with Devon spending nearly $200,000 in a PR and lobbying blitz.

The group Devon donated to argued the ban would hurt the town’s economy. Remember Oklahoma Governor Fallin? Well she signed a similar bill which prevents local governments from banning fracking. It’s worth noting that, through all this, Denton’s congressional representative Myra Crownover has financial stake in Devon.

So now Nichols, the man behind Devon, is leading energy policy for Marco Rubio. Let’s be frank: Rubio has very little chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee. He may win the primary in his home state of Florida on ‘winner-takes-all’ Tuesday, but that’s not in the bag. And even if he does, he’ll still be far behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

But Nichols’ role in his campaign is significant. It shows that 2012 was not just a one-off. In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney was advised by Harold Hamm, the head honcho at fracking firm Continental Resources. Nichols is cut from the same cloth.

Essentially the Republican Party establishment has decided on its energy policy – and it’s fracking.

 

 

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

 

Meet the Koch-affiliated fracker behind Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Leave a reply

The influential oil and gas executive advising US presidential candidate Marco Rubio has for years used his political clout to lobby against tougher rules across shale country, arguing they are unjustified.

Last month the Florida Senator, darling of the Republican establishment, drafted Larry Nichols, the founder and former CEO of fracking firm Devon Energy, to shape his campaign’s energy policy.

Reports in the US press claim Devon spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to overturn a Texas town’s decision to ban fracking, and used its political connections to resist calls for emissions and wastewater regulations in Oklahoma.

With an estimated enterprise value of $32 billion, the Oklahoma-based Devon Energy is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in the US. Nichols is credited with the company’s rise into the Fortune 500, having founded the firm with his father in the 1970s and spotted the opportunity posed by hydraulic fracturing in the 1990s.

Since then Nichols has become one of the most politically active oil execs in the country, serving as chairman for the American Petroleum Institute and directing the American Natural Gas Alliance lobby group. He’s also a member of the political donor network established by the infamous Koch brothers.

Before he joined Team Rubio, Nichols gave $50,000 to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for his 2012 recall vote, and oversaw a $50,000 donation from Devon to the Wisconsin branch of the anti-tax Super PAC Club for Growth – which was supporting Walker.

In this election cycle, he’s so far given $50,000 to Conservative Solutions, the PAC backing Rubio. Meanwhile, according to Open Secrets data, Devon has spent more than $16 million on lobbying since 1998 – recently it’s been spending around $2 million a year.

Oklahoma

Let’s start in Nichols’ home-state, where Devon is especially powerful. In perhaps the firm’s most egregious use of political pressure, Devon was revealed by the New York Times to have leaned on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to write to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in defense of the oil and gas sector.

Pruitt told the EPA that federal regulators were massively overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by natural gas extraction in his state, but the three-page letter he sent was actually written by Devon’s lawyers and given to him by Devon’s lobbying chief.

A senior exec at Devon is reported as saying: “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both EPA and the White House.” Following the NYT investigation, Nichols was defiant. In conversation with the Tulsa World newspaper, he said:

“Our industry thought their study was deeply flawed from the methodology. We had meetings with the EPA director and other people in the EPA. We attended some meetings with the White House. We had meetings with senators and congressmen and attorneys general and anyone else that would meet us.”

Fracking earthquakes

Devon hasn’t just used its influence to criticize what it regards as flawed pollution studies, but also seismic research the firm considers groundless.

Oklahoma has been hit with an unprecedented wave of earthquakes in recent years, a development that has been widely attributed to fracking operations in the state – specifically wastewater injections into deep underground wells.

Back in 2011, Arkansas and Ohio were both taking actions to curb the practice. But Oklahoma resisted. An investigation by EnergyWire showed just how powerful Devon was in its home state, where its talking points were used by the fossil fuel funded Governor Mary Fallin to reject the link between increasing fracking activity and increased seismic activity.

The Governor’s office had even turned to Devon for help in responding to a series of earthquakes near Oklahoma City. In the wake of that incident Nichols sought to dispel any connection to oil and gas extraction.

But Devon’s presence is felt well beyond even the Governor’s mansion – all the way into the labs of the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). First there’s funding. Devon, who bought the OGS a new core viewing room in 2014, is one of a number of oil and gas companies spending to support the scientific organisation.

Larry Grillott, Dean of the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, said of the OGS: “We do get a lot of support from the energy industry.”

Second there’s the revolving door. Just a cursory look at the ties between the OGS and Devon turned up a geologist who went from Devon to the OGS and back to Devon over the course of a few years.

And just for the record: The OGS continued to recommend further studies into the state’s quakes and refused to issue any report on the link to oil and gas drilling until years later.

Made in Texas? Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Devon is also a major player in Texas, where it is the largest leaser in the Barnett Shale. Where it has been especially involved is Denton, the town that voted to ban fracking in 2014. Ultimately that ban was overturned by the Texas legislature, with Devon spending nearly $200,000 in a PR and lobbying blitz.

The group Devon donated to argued the ban would hurt the town’s economy. Remember Oklahoma Governor Fallin? Well she signed a similar bill which prevents local governments from banning fracking. It’s worth noting that, through all this, Denton’s congressional representative Myra Crownover has financial stake in Devon.

So now Nichols, the man behind Devon, is leading energy policy for Marco Rubio. Let’s be frank: Rubio has very little chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee. He may win the primary in his home state of Florida on ‘winner-takes-all’ Tuesday, but that’s not in the bag. And even if he does, he’ll still be far behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

But Nichols’ role in his campaign is significant. It shows that 2012 was not just a one-off. In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney was advised by Harold Hamm, the head honcho at fracking firm Continental Resources. Nichols is cut from the same cloth.

Essentially the Republican Party establishment has decided on its energy policy – and it’s fracking.

 

 

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

 

Meet the Koch-affiliated fracker behind Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Leave a reply

The influential oil and gas executive advising US presidential candidate Marco Rubio has for years used his political clout to lobby against tougher rules across shale country, arguing they are unjustified.

Last month the Florida Senator, darling of the Republican establishment, drafted Larry Nichols, the founder and former CEO of fracking firm Devon Energy, to shape his campaign’s energy policy.

Reports in the US press claim Devon spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to overturn a Texas town’s decision to ban fracking, and used its political connections to resist calls for emissions and wastewater regulations in Oklahoma.

With an estimated enterprise value of $32 billion, the Oklahoma-based Devon Energy is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in the US. Nichols is credited with the company’s rise into the Fortune 500, having founded the firm with his father in the 1970s and spotted the opportunity posed by hydraulic fracturing in the 1990s.

Since then Nichols has become one of the most politically active oil execs in the country, serving as chairman for the American Petroleum Institute and directing the American Natural Gas Alliance lobby group. He’s also a member of the political donor network established by the infamous Koch brothers.

Before he joined Team Rubio, Nichols gave $50,000 to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for his 2012 recall vote, and oversaw a $50,000 donation from Devon to the Wisconsin branch of the anti-tax Super PAC Club for Growth – which was supporting Walker.

In this election cycle, he’s so far given $50,000 to Conservative Solutions, the PAC backing Rubio. Meanwhile, according to Open Secrets data, Devon has spent more than $16 million on lobbying since 1998 – recently it’s been spending around $2 million a year.

Oklahoma

Let’s start in Nichols’ home-state, where Devon is especially powerful. In perhaps the firm’s most egregious use of political pressure, Devon was revealed by the New York Times to have leaned on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to write to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in defense of the oil and gas sector.

Pruitt told the EPA that federal regulators were massively overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by natural gas extraction in his state, but the three-page letter he sent was actually written by Devon’s lawyers and given to him by Devon’s lobbying chief.

A senior exec at Devon is reported as saying: “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both EPA and the White House.” Following the NYT investigation, Nichols was defiant. In conversation with the Tulsa World newspaper, he said:

“Our industry thought their study was deeply flawed from the methodology. We had meetings with the EPA director and other people in the EPA. We attended some meetings with the White House. We had meetings with senators and congressmen and attorneys general and anyone else that would meet us.”

Fracking earthquakes

Devon hasn’t just used its influence to criticize what it regards as flawed pollution studies, but also seismic research the firm considers groundless.

Oklahoma has been hit with an unprecedented wave of earthquakes in recent years, a development that has been widely attributed to fracking operations in the state – specifically wastewater injections into deep underground wells.

Back in 2011, Arkansas and Ohio were both taking actions to curb the practice. But Oklahoma resisted. An investigation by EnergyWire showed just how powerful Devon was in its home state, where its talking points were used by the fossil fuel funded Governor Mary Fallin to reject the link between increasing fracking activity and increased seismic activity.

The Governor’s office had even turned to Devon for help in responding to a series of earthquakes near Oklahoma City. In the wake of that incident Nichols sought to dispel any connection to oil and gas extraction.

But Devon’s presence is felt well beyond even the Governor’s mansion – all the way into the labs of the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). First there’s funding. Devon, who bought the OGS a new core viewing room in 2014, is one of a number of oil and gas companies spending to support the scientific organisation.

Larry Grillott, Dean of the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, said of the OGS: “We do get a lot of support from the energy industry.”

Second there’s the revolving door. Just a cursory look at the ties between the OGS and Devon turned up a geologist who went from Devon to the OGS and back to Devon over the course of a few years.

And just for the record: The OGS continued to recommend further studies into the state’s quakes and refused to issue any report on the link to oil and gas drilling until years later.

Made in Texas? Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Devon is also a major player in Texas, where it is the largest leaser in the Barnett Shale. Where it has been especially involved is Denton, the town that voted to ban fracking in 2014. Ultimately that ban was overturned by the Texas legislature, with Devon spending nearly $200,000 in a PR and lobbying blitz.

The group Devon donated to argued the ban would hurt the town’s economy. Remember Oklahoma Governor Fallin? Well she signed a similar bill which prevents local governments from banning fracking. It’s worth noting that, through all this, Denton’s congressional representative Myra Crownover has financial stake in Devon.

So now Nichols, the man behind Devon, is leading energy policy for Marco Rubio. Let’s be frank: Rubio has very little chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee. He may win the primary in his home state of Florida on ‘winner-takes-all’ Tuesday, but that’s not in the bag. And even if he does, he’ll still be far behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

But Nichols’ role in his campaign is significant. It shows that 2012 was not just a one-off. In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney was advised by Harold Hamm, the head honcho at fracking firm Continental Resources. Nichols is cut from the same cloth.

Essentially the Republican Party establishment has decided on its energy policy – and it’s fracking.

 

 

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

 

Meet the Koch-affiliated fracker behind Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Leave a reply

The influential oil and gas executive advising US presidential candidate Marco Rubio has for years used his political clout to lobby against tougher rules across shale country, arguing they are unjustified.

Last month the Florida Senator, darling of the Republican establishment, drafted Larry Nichols, the founder and former CEO of fracking firm Devon Energy, to shape his campaign’s energy policy.

Reports in the US press claim Devon spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to overturn a Texas town’s decision to ban fracking, and used its political connections to resist calls for emissions and wastewater regulations in Oklahoma.

With an estimated enterprise value of $32 billion, the Oklahoma-based Devon Energy is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in the US. Nichols is credited with the company’s rise into the Fortune 500, having founded the firm with his father in the 1970s and spotted the opportunity posed by hydraulic fracturing in the 1990s.

Since then Nichols has become one of the most politically active oil execs in the country, serving as chairman for the American Petroleum Institute and directing the American Natural Gas Alliance lobby group. He’s also a member of the political donor network established by the infamous Koch brothers.

Before he joined Team Rubio, Nichols gave $50,000 to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for his 2012 recall vote, and oversaw a $50,000 donation from Devon to the Wisconsin branch of the anti-tax Super PAC Club for Growth – which was supporting Walker.

In this election cycle, he’s so far given $50,000 to Conservative Solutions, the PAC backing Rubio. Meanwhile, according to Open Secrets data, Devon has spent more than $16 million on lobbying since 1998 – recently it’s been spending around $2 million a year.

Oklahoma

Let’s start in Nichols’ home-state, where Devon is especially powerful. In perhaps the firm’s most egregious use of political pressure, Devon was revealed by the New York Times to have leaned on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to write to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in defense of the oil and gas sector.

Pruitt told the EPA that federal regulators were massively overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by natural gas extraction in his state, but the three-page letter he sent was actually written by Devon’s lawyers and given to him by Devon’s lobbying chief.

A senior exec at Devon is reported as saying: “The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both EPA and the White House.” Following the NYT investigation, Nichols was defiant. In conversation with the Tulsa World newspaper, he said:

“Our industry thought their study was deeply flawed from the methodology. We had meetings with the EPA director and other people in the EPA. We attended some meetings with the White House. We had meetings with senators and congressmen and attorneys general and anyone else that would meet us.”

Fracking earthquakes

Devon hasn’t just used its influence to criticize what it regards as flawed pollution studies, but also seismic research the firm considers groundless.

Oklahoma has been hit with an unprecedented wave of earthquakes in recent years, a development that has been widely attributed to fracking operations in the state – specifically wastewater injections into deep underground wells.

Back in 2011, Arkansas and Ohio were both taking actions to curb the practice. But Oklahoma resisted. An investigation by EnergyWire showed just how powerful Devon was in its home state, where its talking points were used by the fossil fuel funded Governor Mary Fallin to reject the link between increasing fracking activity and increased seismic activity.

The Governor’s office had even turned to Devon for help in responding to a series of earthquakes near Oklahoma City. In the wake of that incident Nichols sought to dispel any connection to oil and gas extraction.

But Devon’s presence is felt well beyond even the Governor’s mansion – all the way into the labs of the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). First there’s funding. Devon, who bought the OGS a new core viewing room in 2014, is one of a number of oil and gas companies spending to support the scientific organisation.

Larry Grillott, Dean of the University of Oklahoma’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, said of the OGS: “We do get a lot of support from the energy industry.”

Second there’s the revolving door. Just a cursory look at the ties between the OGS and Devon turned up a geologist who went from Devon to the OGS and back to Devon over the course of a few years.

And just for the record: The OGS continued to recommend further studies into the state’s quakes and refused to issue any report on the link to oil and gas drilling until years later.

Made in Texas? Marco Rubio’s energy policy

Devon is also a major player in Texas, where it is the largest leaser in the Barnett Shale. Where it has been especially involved is Denton, the town that voted to ban fracking in 2014. Ultimately that ban was overturned by the Texas legislature, with Devon spending nearly $200,000 in a PR and lobbying blitz.

The group Devon donated to argued the ban would hurt the town’s economy. Remember Oklahoma Governor Fallin? Well she signed a similar bill which prevents local governments from banning fracking. It’s worth noting that, through all this, Denton’s congressional representative Myra Crownover has financial stake in Devon.

So now Nichols, the man behind Devon, is leading energy policy for Marco Rubio. Let’s be frank: Rubio has very little chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee. He may win the primary in his home state of Florida on ‘winner-takes-all’ Tuesday, but that’s not in the bag. And even if he does, he’ll still be far behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

But Nichols’ role in his campaign is significant. It shows that 2012 was not just a one-off. In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney was advised by Harold Hamm, the head honcho at fracking firm Continental Resources. Nichols is cut from the same cloth.

Essentially the Republican Party establishment has decided on its energy policy – and it’s fracking.

 

 

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.