fightclimatedenial

[fightclimatedenial]

Calling Bullshit on Wells Fargo

by Ben Hauck

I call bullshit on Wells Fargo, Trump and the GOP.

Wells Fargo came out singing praises for the GOP tax cuts, announcing that they were going to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour.  Big win for the workers?  Or is this an empty marketing effort on behalf of Trump and a handful of corporations who collaborated with the administration to market the tax cuts as a win for the American people?

First, it is deplorable that Wells Fargo is paying any employee less than $15 an hour.  With extremely high and constantly rising costs of living, $15 an hour is barely enough to survive in many parts of the country, let alone thrive.  There is nothing heroic in Wells Fargo announcing that they are paying a minimally livable wage.

Second, Wells Fargo increased their minimum hourly wage to $13.50 back in January 2017.  While they denied it had anything to do with the numerous scandals and legal violations (like opening millions of fraudulent accounts) industry analysts commented that it was likely a move to retain current employees and attract new employees.  A major competitor, Bank of America, announced a $15 minimum hourly wage around the same time, putting pressure on Wells Fargo to raise their wages.

Third, several states and cities have implemented or are implementing a $15 minimum wage.  States like New York and California are already on a path to $15 an hour, so eventually Wells Fargo was going to be required to pay this hourly wage in a number of states and cities.    

Fourth, while the raise for some employees from $13.50 to $15 will be a nice benefit, how much will it cost Wells Fargo?  Back in January, Wells Fargo noted that the raises to tellers and other entry level positions would impact 25,000 employees.  The entry level employees were making between $12 and $16 an hour, and were given raises to a range of $13.50 to $17.  Now Wells Fargo is raising from $13.50 to $15.  

Let’s assume Wells Fargo will give the new $1.50 raise to all 25,000 entry level employees (which is unlikely).  That means the maximum hourly wage increase would be $1.50 per hour, for 40 hours a week, for 52 weeks.  That is $3,120 per employee.  For 25,000 employees, that would equal $78 million in increased wages.  I understand there may be other costs associated with the raises, but let’s go with the $78 million figure.  

Fifth, how much is Wells Fargo going to benefit from the tax cuts?  There are several estimates being introduced by Wall Street analysts, with most estimating Wells Fargo will see a 16% to 18% gain to net income as a result of the tax cuts.  The analyst team at Goldman Sachs predicts that Wells Fargo will see a $3.7 billion dollar increase, which is close to the 16% estimate.

Wells Fargo is going to obtain a windfall of approximately $3.7 billion in net income, and will give $78 million to entry level employees in hourly wage hikes.  How much is that as a percentage?  2.1%.  Where is the rest of the tax windfall going?  Wells Fargo’s CEO Tim Sloan was recently quoted as saying:

“Is it our goal to increase return to our shareholders and do we have an excess amount of capital? The answer to both is, yes. So our expectation should be that we will continue to increase our dividend and our share buybacks next year and the year after that and the year after that.”          

Sixth, how much capital will be returned to shareholders?  Last fiscal year, Wells Fargo paid out $9 billion dollars in dividends and bought back nearly $5 billion dollars’ worth of their stock.  In the second fiscal quarter of 2017 alone, Wells Fargo “returned” $3.4 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.  Moving forward, those dividends and repurchases will continue to increase, as per the CEO.

$14 billion dollars returned to shareholders last year, which mostly enriches executives, Wall Street and wealthy shareholders.  Does some of this “trickle down” to average Americans who hold stock?  Sure.  But the majority of this money is being funneled to the wealthiest Americans and investors.  

So, when Wells Fargo announces raising wages to $15 an hour or $78 million total, it must be contrasted to the $14 billion (and increasing) they are returning to shareholders.  $78 million is about half of percent (0.56%) of $14 billion.  Not only that, Wells Fargo was going to be pressured to raise wages for their workers regardless of the tax cuts, as competitors raise their minimum wages and states and cities do the same.

Wells Fargo didn’t suddenly become a generous, giving corporation looking out for their employees’ best interests.  They were going to be forced to raise wages regardless of the tax cuts.  Yet they packaged the wage increases in fancy altruistic wrapping paper and handed them to the American people as a dishonest, vacuous  gift, with the blessings (and encouragement?) of Trump and the GOP.

The GOP tax scam just handed Wells Fargo $3.7 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars.  Wells Fargo handed a few crumbs to employees who are earning slave wages and called it a giant victory for the American people.  I call bullshit, and you should too.   References:

https://shareblue.com/as-gop-hands-them-billions-wells-fargo-ceo-admits-he-wont-help-workers/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/att-boeing-pass-tax-cut-savings-workers-51917291

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/news/companies/wells-fargo-bonuses-tax-cuts/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/05/investing/wells-fargo-raises-minimum-pay/index.html

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/19/16795540/wells-fargo-republican-tax-bill

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WFC/cash-flow?p=WFC

https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/investor-relations/investment-profile/

[fightclimatedenial]

Santa Monica Moves to Divest from Wells Fargo

by Ben Hauck

February 15th 2017

The divestment movement continues to gain momentum following the historic unanimous vote by the Seattle City Council to divest $3 billion from Wells Fargo.  Yesterday the Santa Monica City Council voted 5-0 to support divesting from Wells Fargo.  The proposal was placed on the Council agenda by Council Members Terry O’Day and Tony Vazquez and passed unanimously Tuesday night.

The beachside community in Southern California will now “direct staff to examine its investment practices and consider divesting all City funds from Wells Fargo, due to their business practices and their involvement in financing the Dakota Access Pipeline.” While the city uses several banks for financial services, Wells Fargo was the city’s primary lender out of the 17 banks financing the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline.

Santa Monica joins both Seattle, Washington and Davis, California in the movement to divest from banks participating in unethical business practices.  Unethical business practices include predatory lending, discrimination against low-income consumers and people of color, banking fraud and investing in destructive projects that harm communities and the environment.

A major focal point of the recent call to divest has been the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Construction of the oil pipeline has destroyed sacred indigenous ancestral lands, violated Native American treaty agreements and led to widely documented human rights abuses against Native Americans and non-native water protectors.  The recent executive order from Trump to expedite approval led to an illegally halted Environmental Impact Statement and easement approval by the Army Corps of Engineers.  Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the pipeline, has resumed drilling under Lake Oahe and plans on completing the pipeline in the near future.

Further calls for cities to divest are being reported in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon.   A new organization in Los Angeles, DivestLA, is pushing for a socially responsible banking ordinance and divestment of City funds from Wells Fargo. 

[fightclimatedenial]

Seattle Divests from Wells Fargo

February 8th 2017

by Ben Hauck

The divestment movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline is gaining momentum.  On Tuesday February 7th, the city of Seattle voted to divest approximately $3 billion dollars from their long time banking partner, Wells Fargo.  The city council voted unanimously 9-0 to cut ties with the bank over issues surrounding social responsibility.  

The focal point of the divestment was Wells Fargo’s financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The Dakota Access pipeline has been a highly controversial project, with a wide range of issues from Native American treaty rights violations, to violent attacks on indigenous people and their allies during attempts to halt the construction of the pipeline.  

There are several divestment movements occurring related to the Dakota Access Pipeline and the company behind it, Energy Transfer Partners.  Individuals have pulled tens of millions of dollars out of banks in the Defund DAPL movement.  With the successful divestment measure in Seattle, cities, tribes and organizations across the US and beyond are considering divesting from banks who are investing in projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline.  

Over the weeks and months ahead, banks can expect to hear a continuous and growing call to follow socially responsible investment guidelines, and to divest from projects that violate social, gender, racial, economic, religious and environmental rights.

For more on this story, check out the latest article from NPR.

[fightclimatedenial]

ADEMs - What, Where, Why & When

by Ben Hauck

January 3rd 2017

What are the California ADEMs?

The Assembly District Election Meetings, or ADEMS, are held every two years by the California Democratic Party.  At the meetings, fourteen Assembly District Delegates (7 women and 7 men) from each Assembly District are elected as part of the governing body of the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC).  Approximately 1/3 of the DSCC members are elected through the ADEMs.  This is one of the most direct ways for grassroots participation in the California Democratic Party.

Who elects the delegates?

Any eligible voter in California registered as a Democrat can vote in the ADEMs.  The ADEMs are not generally well known, so voter turnout can be relatively low.  In some districts, delegates can win a position in the party with well under 100 votes.  Other districts are much more competitive.  However compared to the general election or even a primary, individuals turning out to vote at the ADEMs can have a significant impact on the outcome.  Your vote can make the difference in the ADEMs.

What if I am not currently registered as a Democrat?

No problem!  Same day registration is allowed and is available at the ADEMs. You can always change your affiliation back after you vote!

When are the ADEMs?

The ADEMs will be held January 7th or January 8th 2017, depending on the district.

What is an Assembly District, and how do I find out what mine is?

The California State Assembly is the lower house of the California State Legislature.  The upper house is the California State Senate. There are a total of 80 California State Assembly Districts, roughly going from north to south.  Every 10 years the districts are redrawn based on census data to keep the districts roughly similar in population.  You can find your Assembly District (AD) and your District representative here.  Below is my AD-62.

What do the Assembly District Delegates do?

Delegates make important decisions for the State Party at the annual State Convention.  Together with the other 2/3 of the Democratic State Central Committee, Assembly District Delegates vote in the election of officers, the election of state party regional directors, taking positions on ballot endorsements, and other functions. Delegates are responsible for planning and attending informational meetings throughout the region and working with other delegates to represent their community. In some counties, being an Assembly District Delegate also entitles you to join and vote in a county party.

What is the Executive Board and how are they elected at the ADEMs?

At the ADEMs you can submit one vote for the Executive Board, or E-Board, within your district.  Those selected as E-Board members meet at least two additional times per year to conduct party business between the annual conventions. That includes electing members to the Democratic National Committee in presidential election years, and attending Standing Committee and Caucus meetings.

Do I have to vote for seven women and seven men at the ADEMs?

No, you can vote for anywhere from zero to seven women, and zero to seven men.  That means you can vote for individuals who you believe best represent your interests and ideologies.  You may also choose to vote for a “slate” of candidates.  Slates are groups of candidates who tend to share basic values and political beliefs, though this can vary widely from slate to slate.

So the ADEMs are an important way for grassroots citizens to get involved and influence the California Democratic Party, and my vote can make a difference.  How do I decide who to vote for?

One option would be to visit the California Democratic Party website, find your Assembly District and read the bios for all of the male and female candidates, plus the Executive Board candidates.  However since the bios are written by the candidates themselves, you either have to trust that what they are saying is a true reflection of their ideology and intended actions, or you have to start doing a lot of detective work.

What if I am a progressive Bernie Sanders supporter and want to quickly find the candidates that have been vetted by his trusted supporters?

Fortunately there is an excellent ADEMS2017 website where all you need to do is enter your address and city.  It will instantly provide you with your Assembly District number, all dates, times and locations for your ADEMs, along with individually vetted Bernie Sanders progressives with bios and other details. While I cannot personally guarantee the values and ideologies of all candidates on the site, I know the people associated with the site, as well as many of the individual candidates on the site.  This is as legit as it gets.

What if I am a centrist, corporate Democrat?  Can you help me?

Yeah, no.

[fightclimatedenial]

Los Angeles Stands with Standing Rock

Chief Seattle, Chief of the Suquamish Indians, allegedly wrote to the President of the United States in 1852.  The historical accuracy of the letter is often disputed, but what cannot be disputed is the wisdom and beauty of the words.  The letter is below, with images from the rally and march included throughout.

 by Ben Hauck

November 15th 2016

"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.

The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother.

If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.

Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.

This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.

Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?

We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us.

As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you.

One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all.

[fightclimatedenial]

Dakota Access Pipeline - Letter to President Obama from Members of Congress

Below is the actual text from an official letter from Members of Congress to President Obama on the Dakota Access Pipeline.  

September 29, 2016

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to you because of our grave concerns about the Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of Dakota Access LLC’s construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the effects of which have been highlighted by the growing public opposition to the project. Over the past several weeks, the mounting opposition to the pipeline has grown exponentially, uniting and mobilizing Native American tribes across the country in an unprecedented manner.

On Friday, your Administration took necessary action by denying the authorization of construction on Army Corps owned land and under Lake Oahe pending a review of prior decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act and government-to-government consultation with the tribes. We applaud this pause and urge you to go further -- like you did with your rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline -- to require a full environmental review and expanded consultation along the full route of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Your Administration has worked tirelessly to restore a respectful relationship with Native American tribes, committing to increased tribal consultation and preservation of tribal culture and ancestral lands. You rightly endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010, you’ve recognized tribe’s inherent power to exercise special criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders, and you have just announced a tri-lateral commitment with Canada and Mexico to work with Indigenous Peoples on violence against indigenous women. You can and should extend your historic legacy by withdrawing the permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline and ensuring a comprehensive environmental review with rigorous and meaningful tribal consultations.

The Dakota Access Pipeline project would extend 1168 miles across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois carrying 450,000 barrels of tracked oil per day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to terminals and refineries along the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline would cut through the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's ancestral lands and pass within half a mile of its current reservation. Not only would the Dakota Access Pipeline threaten sacred sites and culturally important landscapes, it would also cross under the Missouri River just upstream of the Tribe’s drinking water supply. If there were to be a spill — which history has taught us is a serious possibility — it would constitute a dire threat to the Tribe’s culture and way of life. The pipeline poses significant threats to the environment, public health, and tribal and human rights.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for the United States has called on your Administration to allow for adequate consultation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stating that moving ahead with construction of this pipeline would be in violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Halting construction on this project until transparent and impartial consultation can be conducted is necessary to avoid further escalation and tribal rights abuses. We call on your administration to intervene on this matter to ensure the safety of everyone involved.

On its face, the Dakota Access Pipeline should be stopped in its tracks as it is an assault on the water we drink and the culture and sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In Energy Transfer’s desperate scramble to force this project as quickly as possible and before the courts have a chance to weigh in, they irresponsibly dispatched private security guards with attack dogs and bulldozers aimed to provoke hundreds of courageous protesters defending their heritage, their land, and their water. It was an insensitive and reckless effort that has already resulted in the desecration of centuries-old artifacts that can never be replaced.

Dakota Access Pipeline is an unacceptable example of an oil pipeline project being permitted without adequate public engagement or sufficient environmental review. The permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline project were granted using the Army Corps’ Nationwide Permit 12, a fast track permitting process that has allowed the oil and gas industry to build numerous fossil fuel pipelines across the country, even on private property, without any project-specific environmental review or public input process for tribal governments or citizens. Given the size, scale, environmental risks, and controversy, Dakota Access pipeline should have received a more thorough review and analysis under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, as well as to fulfill federal trust responsibilities guaranteed in the 1851 and 1868 United States treaties with the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota tribes.

The Clean Water Act’s general permit program was not intended for massive interstate pipelines that transport hazardous fossil fuels for hundreds of miles through communities and waterways and pose grave risks of leaks, spills, and explosions. The National Environmental Policy Act requires a full environmental impact statement (EIS) be completed for major actions that affect the environment. This process is the only way to ensure that the risks and impacts from these projects have been identified, analyzed, and properly mitigated, and ensure that the families and communities that stand to be affected by a disaster have an opportunity to have their voices heard in the pipeline review process.

We, the Members of Congress signed below; support the tribes and landowners along the pipeline route in their fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline project. We urge your Administration to direct the Corps to initiate a transparent permitting process that includes public notice and participation, formal tribal consultation, and adequate environmental review of the pipeline. Until that occurs, construction of this project in areas of federal jurisdiction should not be allowed to continue.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

[fightclimatedenial]

Republican Clean Coal Fantasy

by Ben Hauck

July 16th 2016

American politics on environmental and climate change policies could not show greater contrast between the two parties.  On one side of the aisle, the Democratic National Convention has put together the strongest proposed climate platform in US history. With heavy influence from Bernie Sanders and progressives, the DNC changed or strengthened several of their positions, including supporting a price on carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases. While progressives and environmentalists did not obtain all of their climate goals, notably a ban on fracking and a rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, they did push the party platform dramatically to the left.

“This is the most aggressive plan to combat climate change in the history of the Democratic Party.” stated Sanders’ policy director Warren Gunnels. “As a result of this plan, natural gas is no longer regarded as a bridge to the future. The future of America’s energy system now clearly belongs to sun and wind power.”

Meanwhile at the Republican National Convention, the party was working on language to support the dirtiest of fossil fuels.  After a unanimous vote on Monday, the RNC's draft platform officially declared coal as "an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource."

Prior to this vote, the platform draft already showed strong support for coal.  However David Barton, a delegate from Texas, proposed a single-word addition to the RNC's list of adjectives on coal. "I would insert the adjective 'clean' along with coal, particularly because the technology we have now."

Interestingly, the RNC platform language happens to reflect the same talking points favored by the lobby group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. This fossil fuel lobby group calls coal "an affordable, abundant and increasingly clean domestic energy resource that is vital to providing reliable low-cost electricity."

Is clean coal a reality now, or even in the future?  Or is it a false narrative created by the fossil fuel industry in order to continue mining and burning coal, putting profits over people and the environment?

Today, coal is inarguably an extremely dirty form of power.  Burning coal emits massive quantities of carbon dioxide, a leading contributor to climate change.  Other emissions from burning coal include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, lead, cadmium, carbon monoxide, arsenic and other waste products.  These emissions are extremely dangerous to humans and the environment, causing disease and death in human populations.  The World Health Organization estimated in 2014 that air pollution exposure killed around 7 million people in 2012.  While this figure is not isolated to the impacts of coal, burning coal is one of the largest sources of air pollution worldwide.

Unfortunately for proponents of coal, the burning of coal for energy is not the only factor that makes it dirty.  Coal mining is extremely destructive to the environment and human health.  Add in processing and refining, transportation, disposal of waste products and other factors and you will find that coal has more negative environmental impacts than any other major energy source.

What about new technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, or increased efficiency of coal fired electricity plants?  Increasing efficiency through the construction of high-efficiency low-emission (HELE) technology plants could significantly reduce emissions relative to the amount of electricity produced. Currently, the global efficiency average for coal fired plants is 35% lower heating value (LHV).  This could be potentially be improved by building new HELE plants with ultra-supercritical technologies (USC), or retiring older, low efficiency plants and building new HELE plants to replace them.  Newer plants such as the Lunen plant in Germany operates at an efficiency of 46% LHV while meeting stringent German environmental requirements.

Unfortunately, HELE technologies carry a higher upfront price tag with 20 - 30% higher upfront costs for new USC technology. Building new HELE plants can be justified when looking at longer term costs of fuel vs electricity output.  If you use less coal for the same amount of energy, the cost per kWh of electricity decreases.

Retiring older plants in favor of newer HELE plants is a much more difficult economic argument to make, especially in countries such as India and China where low energy costs are critical to current economic models. With other forms of energy such as wind and solar hitting grid parity in many parts of the world, can economics justify the higher costs of HELE coal plants?

What about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the longtime poster-child of the coal industry?  The concept involves a set of technologies that can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing coal (and natural gas) fired plants. Basically, carbon dioxide is captured from the flue gas, compressed and transported to injection wells, then sequestered in deep underground porous rock formations.  80 - 90% of carbon dioxide emissions could technically be captured compared to non-CCS plants.

CCS technologies exist, but so far large scale commercialization has not happened, largely due to economics.  At this time, energy produced by a CCS plant would be significantly higher in cost than conventional energy.  Without any significant commercial applications in operation, actual costs are difficult to determine.  A 2012 Congressional Budget Office report estimated CCS energy to be 76% higher than conventional energy on an LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) basis.

One of the few attempted CCS power plants in the US has recently captured attention, but unfortunately it is for massive cost overruns of $4 billion and running 2 years behind schedule.  The plant in Mississippi is currently facing an investigation from the SEC and is being sued for fraud by utilities consumers.

The economic argument is especially difficult in the current environment in the US where natural gas costs have plummeted, leading many electrical generation plants to switch from coal to natural gas.  Natural gas has its own major environmental problems, but from a pure economic standpoint (ignoring negative externalities) natural gas has undermined the coal industry’s economic viability.

Then there are the plummeting costs of renewable technologies like solar and wind.  Solar costs have dropped dramatically over the past decade, with the LCOE of solar panels dropping by 58% from 2010 to 2015.  As demand for solar increases, economies of scale will continue to lower overall costs of solar energy.  Increases in efficiency continue as well, squeezing more energy out of solar panels through the use of new technologies and manufacturing improvements.  A recent report from the International Renewable Energy Agency predicts that costs for solar and wind energy could drop by as much as 59% by 2025.

With the economic viability of coal fired plants in question today, what would a future hold where negative externalities are added into the cost of coal generated electricity, such as through a carbon tax?  Conventional coal plants would be economically nonviable.  New HELE CCS plants might gain ground vs conventional coal plants, but major question marks remain on CCS costs and technical viability.  As renewable costs continue to drop and grid parity is reached, is there any future for coal powered electricity?  It is hard to say with any certainty, but I’d put my money on the DNC platform over the RNC platform.  It seems apparent that “clean coal” is more fantasy than reality, and that Republicans likely have an agenda behind their continued support of a dying coal industry.

As Thomas Edison stated in 1931:

“I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

[fightclimatedenial]

The DNC Platform on Climate and the Environment

by Ben Hauck

July 2, 2016

Below is actual text from the July 1st draft of the 2016 Democratic Party Platform.  The climate change section is included, along with a subsection of the trade text regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is highly relevant to environmental concerns.

Combat Climate Change, Build a Clean Energy Economy, and Secure Environmental Justice

Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred this century. While Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax”, 2016 is on track to break global temperature records once more. Cities from Miami to Baltimore are already threatened by rising seas. California and the West have suffered years of brutal drought. Alaska has been scorched by wildfire. New York has been battered by superstorms, and Texas swamped by flash floods. The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases across our economy, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future. We cannot leave our children a planet that has been profoundly damaged.

Democrats share a deep commitment to tackling the climate challenge; creating millions of good-paying middle class jobs; reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; and meeting the pledge President Obama put forward in the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature increases to “well below” two degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century. We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the fight against climate change around the world, ensure no Americans are left out or left behind as we accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, and be responsible stewards of our natural resources and our public lands and waters. Democrats reject the notion that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs. We can and we will do both.

Clean Energy Economy

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices; modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world, creating new jobs and saving families and businesses money on their energy bills. And we will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, making new investments in public transportation, expanding electrification of the vehicle fleet, increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks, and by building bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas. Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy.

Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards, and the reduction of methane emissions from oil and gas production. We will work to expand access to cost-saving renewable energy by low-income households, create good-paying jobs in communities that have struggled with energy poverty, and oppose efforts by utilities to limit consumer choice or slow clean energy deployment. We support President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. And we believe that the federal government should lead by example, which is why we will take steps to power the government with 100 percent clean electricity.

Environmental and Climate Justice

Democrats believe clean air and clean water are basic rights of all Americans. Yet as we saw in Flint, Michigan, low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately home to environmental justice “hot spots,” where air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards like lead increase health and economic hardship. The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska Native villages—all of which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply put, this is environmental racism. The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind—including the coal communities who kept America’s lights on for generations. Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and the respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future.

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

Public Lands and Waters

Democrats believe in the conservation and collaborative stewardship of our shared natural heritage: the public lands and waterways, the oceans, Great Lakes, the Arctic, and all that makes America’s great outdoors priceless. As a nation, we need policies and investments that will keep America’s public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, protect species and wildlife, and harness the immense economic and social potential of our public lands and waters. We oppose drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, and believe we need to reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands. We can phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands, starting with the most polluting sources, while making our public lands and waters engines of the clean energy economy and creating jobs across the country.

Fight for Economic Fairness and Against Inequality

Trade

These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to any future trade agreements. On the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party. Many Democrats are on record stating that the agreement does not meet the standards set out in this platform; other Democrats have expressed support for the agreement. But all Democrats believe that any trade agreement must protect workers and the environment and not undermine access to critically-needed prescription drugs.

[fightclimatedenial]

Break Free

by Ben Hauck

May 15th 2016

Break free from deadly air pollution, one of the world’s leading killers causing respiratory disease, heart disease, asthma and cancer.  

Break free from water pollution caused by massive oil spills, fossil fuel extraction and harmful pollutants that wash into our oceans, lakes, rivers and streams.

Break free from fracking, a false-hope bridge fuel that releases massive amounts of methane into our environment, and poisons our fresh water resources.

Break free from ocean acidification, a catastrophic impact from burning fossil fuels that is killing marine life, critical food chains and human food resources at an alarming rate.

Break free from the danger of oil supply risks and price instability, and the resulting economic threats of to the global economy.

Break free from national insecurity, excessive military spending and the death of American soldiers as a result of controlling oil resources in other parts of the world.

Break free from the threat to global food supplies as a result of climate change, ocean acidification, water pollution and land destruction.

Break free from the dangers of more frequent and powerful storms, including hurricanes and massive flooding events.

Break free from increasing water scarcity as a result of increasing global temperatures, extreme droughts and changing weather patterns.

Break free from the slow moving threat of sea level rise, a massive risk to millions of people living in low lying coastal communities.

Break free from the violent fires ravaging the planet, burning forests and lands that are critical to absorbing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

Break free from the lies and manipulation from the fossil fuel industry and their paid climate denial campaigns.

Break free from the political systems that chain citizens to a dire future, and prioritizes corporate profits over people.

Break free from our headlong rush towards the next mass extinction event, as species are unable to evolve or adapt at the breakneck pace of anthropogenic climate change.

Break free from the ancient shackles of fossil fuels.  The power lies within you.  The power lies within me.  Stand up and be heard.  March. Speak.  Act.  Vote. 

Break free.

[fightclimatedenial]

March Together

by Ben Hauck

April 17th 2016

Brothers and sisters of Los Angeles, march together.

March together, we can battle the obscene levels of income and wealth inequality in this nation and restore balance in our economy. 

March together, we can end Citizens United, exorcise big money out of politics and take our democracy back.

March together, we can fight for $15 and provide American workers and their families a livable wage.

March together, we can protect our environment and reverse the deadly impacts of climate change.

March together, we can put millions of Americans back to work and restore our crumbling infrastructure.

March together, we can invest in dramatic improvements in education, including tuition free and debt free college.

March together, we can combat institutional racism and demand equality for all, regardless of skin color.

March together, we can restore voting rights and end systematic voter suppression and fraud.

March together, we can end the era of mass incarceration, the destructive war on drugs, and for-profit prison systems.

March together, we can reform campaign finance laws and end legalized political bribery.

March together, we can fight pollution of our air, water and land, prioritizing life on earth over corporate profits.

March together, we can end the destructive war on drugs and decriminalize marijuana, allowing states to set their own legalization policies.

March together, we can protect women’s reproductive rights and permanently close the gender pay gap.

March together, we can secure health care as a right of American citizens, not a privilege for those who can afford it.

March together, we can end meaningless wars, regime changes and reform the military industrial complex.

March together, we can ensure corporations and the billionaire class pay their fair share of taxes, and stop taking advantage of loopholes and offshore tax havens.  

March together, we can break up the big banks, end fraudulent behavior in Wall Street and ensure American’s have a safe and secure place to save and invest their wealth.

March together, we can drive America into the future with a renewable energy revolution, fighting climate change and creating millions of quality jobs.

March together, we can build consensus on reasonable gun laws and policies to make American families safe in their communities.

March together, we can create a political revolution that will decimate the status quo and install a bright future of economic, social, political and environmental equality.  

Brothers and sisters of America, march together.

[fightclimatedenial]

Inspiration and Heartache at March for Bernie Los Angeles

by Ben Hauck

Bernie Sanders events are, quite simply, inspirational.  Whether a march, a rally, or a gathering of Sanders supporters, you will hear wonderful and heart lifting stories.  You will meet people of all ethnicities and nationalities.  You will march side-by-side with college kids and grandparents.  You will shake hands with the well-off and the poor.  Different religions, different backgrounds, different belief systems.  All come together in solidarity for change.  For a better world.

The first time I attended a Sanders march, I could not wipe the silly grin from my face.  The positive energy flowed through the ranks of political soldiers.  There was an overwhelming feeling of cohesion with people I had never met.  Strangers became family in an instant.

I smiled at faces for the first time, and they smiled back.  I cannot quite explain the feeling, but it was joyous and electric.  It made me smile like an idiot as I marched down the streets of Pasadena with my fellow Berners.

The march today down Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd in Los Angeles elicited the same beautiful feelings of togetherness.  The crowd was incredibly diverse, strangers who otherwise would be unlikely to meet.  Thousands come together for a common cause of justice and equality.

As the Sanderistas gathered, music bounced through the crowd.  Rage Against the Machine tore through the air.  I swam through my new family, singing out “fight the war, fuck the norm!”  I flowed through the gaps in the crowd with my Bern the White House sign, pausing to take pictures with my new brothers and sisters (and cardboard Bernie).

And then we marched. With the Los Angeles Police Department guiding and protecting our march (thank you LAPD!), we headed down MLK.  We chanted, we laughed, we raised our fists.  Cars honked and the march erupted in fresh cheers. Hundreds of cell phones slid by in slow moving vehicles, capturing this unexpected flow of humanity.  New supporters emerged from side streets, joining the movement, each new addition drawing a fresh burst of sound from the crowd.

We marched in the Southern California sunshine.  A day after rain, the air was crisp and clean.  Razor sharp.  The cool breeze danced through the river of people, pushing and pulling hundreds of signs simultaneously.  The heat rose from the newly washed asphalt until it was pushed aside by the winds of early spring.

Our march ended, and the rally began.  Dozens of Berners spoke to the crowd.  People all of backgrounds and ages gave their voice to the microphone, amplified words of revolution reverberating amongst the people.  We laughed, we cheered, we raised our voices and our hands.  

Then a young woman in a wheel chair spoke.  The normally raucous crowd went silent.  Three years ago, she was infected with Lyme disease.  At the time she was a young, healthy, intelligent college student. After years of misdiagnosis, health care blunders, health insurance obstructions and general incompetence from our health care system, she reached a point where her disease became untreatable.  

She now suffers from multiple serious symptoms and will likely be wheel chair bound for the rest of her life.  She experiences memory problems, making education and a career extremely challenging. Her family has spent tens of thousands of dollars over the years, and will continue to be hampered financially for the rest of her life.  

She spoke of depression, a loss of hope.  The young woman next to me had tears streaming down her face.  I fought the tears, but my eyes filled with raw emotion and heartache for this young woman.  She had her normal life torn away from her, when the disease should have been completely treatable.  Our health care system failed her, and it changed her life forever.  

Then suddenly she began to speak of hope, brilliant shining hope coming from the heart of this political movement.  She has been reinvigorated and inspired by this wild idea of change, of political revolution. Hope for her, hope for others. The crowd went wild.  The young woman next to me called out, as tears fell from her face and splashed onto the warm asphalt.  My heartache suddenly changed to something entirely different.  The reason for this movement, personified.  This brave young woman in the wheel chair, holding her arm in the air, and hope in her heart.

This is the movement. This is the revolution.  This is hope.  This is love.   This is US.  

[fightclimatedenial]

Challenge the League of Conservation Voters’ Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

February 22nd 2016

Dear League of Conservation Voters,

I am a proud environmentalist and a climate voter.  I am an active member of the community and a regular supporter of a number of environmental groups.  I have marched and I have protested.  I write and I petition.  Like all environmentalists, I care deeply about the future of our planet.  I believe strongly that our political system must support our efforts to fight pollution and climate change, and protect our planet for current and future generations.  I believe that our democratic system, in spite of its flaws, must be utilized to change the dangerous course we have blindly taken for decades.

Back in November, the LCV surprised its members and environmentalists by endorsing Hillary Clinton for President.  LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski stated  “With her proven history of leadership, strong environmental record, and a campaign committed to building a clean energy future, Hillary Clinton is without a doubt the most effective leader to stand up to Big Polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change and get it done.”

The Clinton endorsement was met with substantial backlash from environmentalists, Bernie Sanders supporters, and those who believe the premature endorsement would undermine efforts to push candidates towards aggressive environmental policies. The seemingly impulsive endorsement was made after only one debate between Democratic candidates, months before the very first primaries and caucuses.  The citizens of the United States, including members and supporters of the LCV, never had an opportunity to voice their opinion or desire for endorsement.  There was no democratic process, no input from members.

Not only was the endorsement premature and made without input from members and supporters, there are questions on whether Clinton is the strongest candidate for the environment.  Clinton has a mixed history with environmental issues.  She was a vocal supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport some of the dirtiest tar sands oil across the US, only changing her stance mid-campaign to appease climate voters.  Clinton has supported trade agreements that put the environment at great risk, including the Trans Pacific Partnership.  The TPP has been blasted by environmental groups, yet Secretary Clinton was a prominent supporter of the “gold standard” trade agreement until she flip-flopped once again.

There are also legitimate questions about campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry made to the Clinton campaign, not to mention lobbyists the Clinton camp disclosed to the FEC that revealed individuals who pushed for offshore drilling, natural gas exports, and minimizing regulations meant to fight climate change.   In addition, major donations from fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil and Chevron to the Clinton Foundation have raised legitimate concerns. Can a candidate act independently and in the best interest of the planet when so much money has been taken from the fossil fuel industries

Another puzzling aspect to the endorsement is the fact that Clinton has a lifetime score of 82% with the LCV National Environmental Scorecard.  Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has a significantly stronger lifetime score of 95%.  With a relatively weak scorecard on the environment, would it not have been more effective for the LCV to withhold an endorsement, and instead use their organizational clout to push her (and the other candidates) on climate issues throughout the primaries?  The premature endorsement sends a message that her current environmental stances are good enough, when in reality the threat from climate change deserves an even more aggressive response.  As Sanders clearly pronounced, climate change is the greatest national security threat we face.

The endorsement might be understandable if the other Democratic candidates were weak on environmental issues.  However this could not be further from the truth.  Senator Sanders is one of the strongest environmental leaders in the American political system.  As noted, he carries a 95% score from the LCV, and was ranked #1 in the Climate Hawks Vote Scorecard on Senate Democrats for the 113th Congress.

Sanders has been strong on environmental issues for decades, with little variance or wandering like Clinton.  I wrote previously about the top 12 reasons Sanders is the greenest candidate.   This includes co-sponsoring the Keep it in the Ground Act, introducing fee and dividend bills such as the Climate Protection Act of 2013, fighting against Keystone XL, introducing legislation to end subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, vowing to kill the TPP, taking stances against fracking and offshore drilling, promoting alternative energy such as solar, and introducing an aggressive climate plan that aims to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.  Environmental groups have praised Sanders’ actions and climate plans.

Taking a closer look at recent campaign actions, a significant disparity can be seen between the Sanders campaign and the Clinton campaign.  Both vowed to make their campaigns carbon neutral by investing in carbon offsets to combat climate change.  Sanders, often seen flying coach, has fulfilled his commitment. Clinton, after being called out for flying in a private jet and committing to carbon offsets, has apparently failed to uphold her promise on the carbon offset commitment.  While this may seem minor compared to voting records and policy stances, it displays a concerning disparity between words and actions from the Clinton campaign.

As a dedicated representative of the environmental movement, I challenge the League of Conservation Voters to reconsider the endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I challenge the LCV to utilize a democratic process with full input from members and supporters, similar to member polls done from organizations such as Democracy for America, and MoveOn.  I challenge the leaders of the LCV to allow their members’ voices to be heard.  If LCV members and supporters choose Clinton, then the people will have spoken to reinforce the LCV endorsement.  If the people choose Sanders, the LCV should consider withdrawing its premature endorsement for the President of the United States.

The future of our planet is at stake.  The people have the right to be heard.  Please sign my petition to the LCV to conduct a member poll and allow the supporters of the LCV to determine the endorsement for the President of the United States.

[fightclimatedenial]

The Greenest Candidate

Top 12 Reasons Why Sanders is the Top Candidate for Environmentalists

by Ben Hauck

February 13th 2016

Environmentalists understand that local, state and national politics play a substantial role in protecting the environment, reducing pollution and fighting climate change.  Politics and legislation alone will not solve the environmental crisis we face, but without support from government officials, the fight for a better future becomes an even greater challenge.  

With this understanding, it becomes vital to elect government representatives at all levels who best represent the interests of environmentalists.  The single most influential individual is without question the President of the United States.  After extensive research into historical records and future policy intentions, it becomes clear that Bernie Sanders is the strongest presidential candidate to fight for the environment.  Below are the top twelve reasons Sanders is the greenest presidential candidate.

1) Sanders was ranked number 1 in the Climate Hawks Vote Scorecard on Senate Democrats for the 113th Congress.  Sanders was ranked number 3 the year prior and has been among the top ranked environmental Senators for years among multiple environmental groups.

2) Bernie is a co-sponsor and helped to announce the bill known as the “Keep it in the Ground Act.” The proposed bill would ban all new fossil fuel development on US federal lands and terminate any current leases that are not producing.  The bill also bans offshore drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic and the Atlantic.  It would also halt new leases for offshore drilling in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico.

3) Along with Senator Barbara Boxer, he introduced a fee-and-dividend energy bill called the Climate Protection Act in 2013.  Fee-and-dividend programs are gaining momentum due to the fact that they tax greenhouse gas pollutants and then rebate part (or all) of the revenue back to citizens to balance out higher energy costs.  The Sanders bill also intended the investment of part of the tax into energy efficiency, clean energy development and climate resiliency.

4) Bernie was against Keystone XL from the beginning, before others changed their position as popular opinion turned against the dirty tar sands oil pipeline.  Back in 2014 Sanders stated that Keystone XL “would move us in exactly the wrong direction toward not only more dependence on fossil fuels but on some of the dirtiest fossil fuel imaginable. That is insane.”  Clinton, in contrast, originally was supportive of Keystone XL.  After avoiding a definitive answer for years, she finally caved to pressure and pivoted against Keystone XL.

5) Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act in 2012.  The bill aimed to eliminate special tax deductions and credits for oil, coal and gas producers.  The bill was again introduced on Earth Day in April 2015 by Sanders and Representative Keith Ellison to close tax loopholes and eliminate other subsidies for the fossil fuel industries.

6) The climate plan Sanders introduced in December 2015 aims to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 while also creating 10 million clean energy jobs.  The 16 page plan would implement a carbon tax and fight the fossil fuel industry head-on with bans on fracking, offshore drilling and the exportation of oil and liquefied natural gas. Environmental groups have praised the plan, including 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben who stated “Even more important than the plan is the credibility of the planner. Bernie has shown with years of committed action that he will not just talk about this stuff on the campaign trail, he will do it in the Oval Office.”

7) Bernie has been against the environmental disaster trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership from the start.  Virtually every environmental organization is strongly against the TPP, as it would grant trans-national corporations even greater legal and corporate power to pollute and legislate against countries that impact their assets or profitability with environmental laws.

8) Sanders has taken a strong stance against fracking and supports shutting down the Porter Ranch facility after one of the largest environmental disasters of our time.

9) In 2010 he authored a bill appropriately named 10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act.  The bill was intended to rapidly increase the production and installation of photovoltaic solar panels through an aggressive consumer rebate program.  By dramatically increasing the scale of installations, total system costs would also be driven down through economies of scale.

10) Tenacious as always, Sanders introduced a similar bill in 2014 called the 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2014.  The bill would require the Department of Energy to establish a rebate program to support consumer purchases of complete PV solar panel systems.  Creating energy freedom and rebalancing power back to the individual citizen aligns perfectly with the democratic socialism platform. 

11) Going back to 2007, Sanders co-wrote the Green Jobs Act with Hillary Clinton, then a Senator for NY.  This bill allocated funding for clean energy implementation and energy efficiency research and development.  It also included job training programs for those in need of updated career training (such as those in the coal industry), veterans, unemployed workers and at-risk youth.

12) Sanders is a strong champion for local, organic farming and has been against biotech giants such as Monsanto taking control of global food supplies.  He has also fought for GMO labeling for years, proposing an amendment back in 2012.

Environmentalists from across the United States have a critical decision to make in the coming primaries and caucuses.  Both Democratic candidates are infinitely better on the environment than their Republican counterparts.  However between the two Democrats, Sanders is a significantly stronger champion for the environment.  He does not take money from the fossil fuel industry, and he will not be influenced by corporate interests.  Sanders is the greenest candidate, and he deserves consideration for your support.

[fightclimatedenial]

The Phantom Menace of Porter Ranch - Part II

By Ben Hauck

January 24th 2016

(Read Part I – The Phantom Menace of Porter Ranch)

In a makeshift, unofficial courtroom within a Woodland Hills Hilton conference center, a five person hearing board came to a decision.  The decision came after four separate public hearings over the course of three weeks.  The first and second hearings were held at the Granada Hills Charter High School, the third at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) office in Diamond Bar, and the final was held and concluded at the Hilton Hotel in Woodland Hills.

There was never any intention to hold multiple hearings.  The additional hearings were a result of the impassioned testimony of local residents, environmental groups, and individuals supporting the community of Porter Ranch. Local citizens who wished to speak at the hearings were given time to recount their personal stories of the gas leak. These personal experiences were given under oath, and taken as evidence in the case against Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).  The individual testimony and the resulting deliberations extended each hearing to the point that a decision could not be reached.

Fearing that the hearings would not be concluded on the fourth attempt, the hearing board decided to limit public testimony to thirty minutes in the final hearing.  Up to thirty individuals had an opportunity to speak for one minute. During this final round of public testimony, one could not help but feel the fear and anger of local residents.  Stories were told of relocations and disruptions to the lives of families.  Property values in the area have plummeted and are unlikely to recover with the threat of the facility in the hills behind the community.  Nosebleeds, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of the gas leak were recounted in detail.  Even pets have become ill.  People are scared.  All while SoCalGas continues to insist that there are no long term health risks associated with the gas leak, merely a short term “inconvenience”.

"The odorant that people are smelling, that's unfortunately causing a lot of this inconvenience, is a short-term issue for people," stated SoCalGas CEO Dennis Arriola in a recent interview with CBS News. "Once we finish closing or solving the leak and closing the well, the issues go away."

Residents believe they are being lied to, rightly so.  They believe SoCalGas is prioritizing profits over people, and are trying to mitigate the financial costs of the leak as opposed to minimizing the risk to the health and well-being of the local citizens.  There is a strong feeling among residents that SoCalGas was grossly negligent in their safety precautions, and that negligence exacerbated the severity of the gas leak impacts.  From the removal of safety valves at Aliso Canyon, to the failure to repair multiple wells that were known to be leaking, the facts support this charge of negligence.  All evidence points to SoCalGas profits being prioritized over public safety.  Lawsuits are already underway against SoCalGas, and more are sure to be launched in the upcoming months and years.

The anger and frustration of local residents was felt throughout the hearings.  Order for abatement hearings are like standard courtroom proceedings.  Silence is expected from the public, and disruptions are not allowed.  Signs were allowed in the hearings as a way of communicating a message, but could not be larger than 18 inches in height or width.

While the audience was quiet for much of the hearings, holding “Shut It All Down” signs, there were multiple occasions when the crowd grumbled or called out when the SoCalGas lawyer made a particularly callous statement, or refused to answer questions directly.  Cheers erupted at least a dozen times as residents gave testimony, or when certain board members made statements in support of the residents.  In particular, residents applauded multiple times for Julie Prussack, the attorney hearing board member and recent Senior Attorney and Director of the Southern California Clean Air Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).  With her experience as a litigating attorney and background with a leading environmental group, Julie was the only board member who regularly argued against the lawyer from SoCalGas, and for the residents of Porter Ranch.

The most unexpected moment occurred in the middle of the hearings, when suddenly all of the lights in the courtroom turn off.  As complete darkness fell across the audience, a single call rang out.  “Shut it all down!”  The call instantly turned into a chant as the dark room swelled with the voices of hundreds.  “Shut it all down! Shut it all down!”  The lights came back on within a few moments, but the energy from the crowd buzzed long after the darkness fled.

The hearing board then listened to statements from the petitioner, the SCAQMD, and the respondent, SoCalGas.  Deliberations ensued to review the proposed stipulated order of abatement, and to determine the final decision of the hearing board.  What steps would be required to stop the leak and minimize health impacts on the local communities?  How would the facility be monitored henceforth to identify and resolve future leaks?  How would SoCalGas ensure that future disasters be averted?

At the center of it all is a critical question: how much authority does the hearing board have, and where does that authority come into conflict with the authority of various agencies, including the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)?

Throughout the hearings it became clear that the hearing board has limited authority, and that a complex assemblage of agencies with various jurisdictions placed further constraints on the authority and power of the hearing board.  Add in the financial and legal power of SoCalGas and their parent company Sempra Energy, a corporation valued over $20 billion dollars, and the challenge in front of the hearing board became apparent.

There was much talk of what the hearing board could not do.  The hearing board cannot enact new laws or regulations.  They do not have any authority to enact orders regarding property values, or relocation costs.  The hearing board cannot even take the environmental impacts into account regarding climate change.

In general, the hearing board is able to require a company operating out of compliance to take specific actions to remedy the violation and come back into compliance.  If unable to remedy the violation, the hearing board appears to have the authority to shut down the operations of the violator.  As noted on the AQMD website, shutting down operations is a severe remedy normally reserved for serious violations.  That begs the question: could a violation possibly be more serious than a massive environmental disaster that has displaced thousands of families and has negatively impacted the health of local residents?  Does the board have a case to shut it all down?

SoCalGas is in violation of California H&S Code 41700 and District Rule 402, which prohibit the discharge of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.  The massive gas leak put SoCalGas in clear violation and gave the hearing board authority to issue an abatement order.

Heading into the final hearing, the abatement order was in the form of a stipulated order for abatement.  What’s the difference between stipulated and non-stipulated?  Basically, a stipulated order of abatement has two critical differences.  First, the hearing board is not required to find that a facility is in violation of any rule or regulation.  Second, the conditions of the order are agreed upon in advance by both parties.  The second difference was critical to the final decision from the board.

The hearing board could have taken the path of a non-stipulated order of abatement.  By going down this path, the board could have taken steps without the agreement from SoCalGas lawyers.  That order could have included the shutdown of some or all wells at the Aliso Canyon facility until their safe use was clearly demonstrated. Stopping all new injections into the facility and emptying the facilities as quickly as safely possible may have been within the authority of the hearing board.  However the extent of their authority was hotly contested by the lawyers from SoCalGas, who claimed that the hearing board did not have that authority.  The SoCalGas lawyers also contested that any attempt to stop injections into the facility could go against the authority of other agencies, including the CPUC.

Stopping injections into the Aliso Canyon facility and drawing down the reserves was one of the central points of contention heading into the final decision.  Julie Prussack took issue with a specific section in the stipulated order of abatement.  In section 4a, the order states that SoCalGas shall minimize natural gas leaking from the facility “except as directed by the CPUC, stopping all gas injection into the Facility’s underground reservoir until the leak at the Well has ceased.” Prussack argued that this exception would undermine the order of abatement, as the CPUC could simply direct SoCalGas to resume injections at any time.  That small statement, along with wording in section 5, essentially created a loophole in the order for abatement.

Prussack requested that the exception be struck from the order, but the legal counsel from SoCalGas rejected removal of the exception or any changes to the two sections.  It was apparent throughout the hearings that SoCalGas was firmly holding to the stipulated order of abatement as written.

At this point, there were two distinct paths that the hearing board could have taken.  The hearing board could have rejected the stipulated order of abatement and created a non-stipulated order.  With a non-stipulated order, they would not need the agreement of SoCalGas or their legal counsel.  They could stop all injections into the facility and draw down the gas reserves as quickly as safely possible.  This would, in effect, temporarily shut down the facility once the drawdown was complete.  However SoCalGas could contest the order, challenge the authority of the hearing board, and lean on the authority of other agencies to weaken or bypass the order. Prussack seemed willing to fight SoCalGas and move towards the creation of a non-stipulated order of abatement.

However after deliberation from the board, the other four hearing board members seemed unwilling to follow this path.  There were comments made by board members implying that it was in the best interest of the public to accept the stipulated order of abatement.  One of the central arguments for accepting the stipulated order was the inclusion from SoCalGas of a health study.  This section of the order committed SoCalGas to fund a health study, to be conducted by a third party.  The study would look into the potential impacts from the exposure to the constituents of the natural gas released from the facility.  That would include the odorant mercaptan and any odor suppressants or neutralizers, or their byproducts, used by SoCalGas to mitigate odors in the nearby community.  The health study would also include the formation of an advisory committee of subject matter experts to evaluate the field data, analysis methods and proposed study results.

The hearing board clearly had no authority to demand the health study, as this was not relevant to the board’s power to abate the nuisance from the gas leak.  In other words, this health study was a carrot offered by SoCalGas in return for accepting the stipulated order of abatement.

Another argument for accepting the stipulated order was SoCalGas committing to permanently seal well SS-25 after the leak has been fixed.  Permanently sealing the well would take it offline forever.  This is a far cry from shutting down the entire Aliso Canyon facility, but it does take the well responsible for the leak offline permanently.  This same action may have been possible through a non-stipulated order, but the legal counsel from SoCalGas contended that shutting down the well was contestable. Therefore, accepting the stipulated order was the only way to guarantee SS-25 be closed permanently.  Or so the lawyers from SoCalGas seemed to imply.

After four separate hearings, the board finally made their decision.  The order of abatement proposed at the hearing would be accepted as written.  This decision was met with extreme disappointment from local residents.

"Total frustration and anger,” resident Alexandra Nagy - Southern California Organizer at the Los Angeles branch of Food & Water Watch - told ABC News.  “The AQMD could have used their full authority to shut this facility down, at least temporarily, and they refused to do that...Our rally cry was very clear. We don't feel safe in our community. We don't feel safe going back to our homes as long as this facility stays open."

However there were positive developments throughout the process. There is no question that the public outrage and testimony had a huge impact on the final abatement order, making it far stronger than the originally proposed order.  There is no question that demonstrations by local residents and environmental groups pressured SoCalGas to strengthen the order, and helped shine the national spotlight on the environmental disaster.  There is also the possibility that the abatement order is only the beginning, and that pressure from citizens will lead to future actions against SoCalGas.

“SCAQMD’s failure to put Californians’ livelihoods first is shameful, and Gov. Brown should intervene swiftly,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There should be no other choice but to shut down the dangerous Aliso Canyon facility and look to close every urban oil and gas facility throughout California and our country, to ensure the health of our communities and our climate is never again sacrificed for corporate polluter profits.”

One major development is the creation of three bills by State Senator Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills.  Proposed bill SB886 seeks to impose a moratorium on new injections of natural gas, and the removal of gas from 48 vintage wells that were drilled prior to 1953, the year SS-25 was drilled.  The vintage wells could only resume operations after state regulators and independent experts determined that they did not pose a threat to public health or safety.  SB887 would seek to avoid future disasters by strengthening regulations, creating annual inspections, installing subsurface safety valves, continuous monitoring, and other steps to improve the safety of natural gas storage facilities.  The third bill, SB888, would require that all costs of the leak are paid with utility profits, not with increases in rates to customers. The bill would also ensure that any costs for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions would come from the Sempra Energy profits and not pushed into rate increases.

While future actions continue to be considered, the current order of abatement is clear.  As stated by the AQMD, SoCalGas must:

Permanently shut down and seal well SS-25 and not inject gas into or withdraw gas from it in the future once the leak has stopped

Fund an independent health study to assess any potential health effects to residents from the gas leak, including as a result of exposure to odorants added to natural gas

Fund continuous air monitoring to be conducted by SCAQMD and/or a contractor under the agency’s supervision

Develop and implement an enhanced leak detection and reporting program for all wells at the storage facility

Monitor the leaking well continuously with an infrared camera until 30 days after the leak has stopped

Minimize gas leaking from the facility

Provide SCAQMD with data on the amount of gas injected and withdrawn from the facility and information necessary to calculate the total amount of methane leaked, once the leak has stopped

Submit a plan to SCAQMD for notifying government agencies and the community of any reportable releases of air emissions

Report all odor complaints to SoCalGas since Oct. 23, 2015, and on an ongoing basis to SCAQMD

Not use any odor suppressants or neutralizers in an attempt to reduce odors from the leak, unless approved by SCAQMD

The order of abatement may have been approved, but the phantom menace beneath the hills of Aliso Canyon continues it inexorable escape into the environment.  The pressurized prison lessens in intensity every day, and one day the ghostly escape from this specific prison will come to an end.  However this is not the last escape attempt.  There are 114 additional prisons in this facility alone.  48 of the 114 prisons shafts were drilled before SS-25, and future escapes of the phantom are all but assured unless aggressive actions are taken.

This story is not over.  Nor is the fighting spirit from citizens and environmental groups.  That spirit will never be contained or imprisoned.    

[fightclimatedenial]

The Phantom Menace of Porter Ranch

By Ben Hauck

January 16th 2016

Deep within the ground, an invisible threat slumbers. Walled in by layers of rock, the gaseous specter has been imprisoned. In its pressurized state of existence, the ghostly mass struggles to escape to equilibrium. In a previously-natural cell, made artificial by man, it searches for a way out; a route to a less compressed environment. Human captors believe they control the only escape route, but slowly, inexorably, the phantom sneaks out of cracks in the rocks, out of poorly-sealed man-made passageways. It pushes against ancient infrastructure, slowly but steadily damaging its prison. One day, the phantom menace breaks free, fleeing into the open air. It spreads into the environment, racing through neighborhoods, schools and businesses. The ethereal cloud dances and dives through the air, following the winds into the great expanse of the atmosphere.

Welcome to Southern California Gas Company’s Aliso Canyon underground natural gas storage facility. Located near the community of Porter Ranch, the storage facility is the second largest of its kind in the United States, sitting on 3,600 acres of land. The storage facility is a depleted oil field, now being used to store massive quantities of natural gas. Natural gas is injected into the well using turbine-driven compressors, creating a highly pressurized environment. The stored gas is then used to supply millions of consumers in the Los Angeles area.

On October 23rd, a gas leak erupted from the well known as Standard Sesnon 25, or SS25. This massive, uncontrolled natural gas leak began belching out massive quantities of natural gas and additive chemicals. As of this writing, it is estimated that the gas leak released nearly 85,000 metric tons of methane, a climate pollutant 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That is the environmental equivalent of burning over 800 million gallons of gasoline. This massive leak has prompted Governor Jerry Brown to issue a state of emergency, though it is a full three months after the leak was initially reported.

From an environmental standpoint, the impact of the methane released into the environment can hardly be comprehended. It is being called the climate version of the BP oil spill. If it were not for the fact that methane is invisible to the human eye, this disaster would be plastered on the front page of global media. It would dominate television and online news. However the reality is that methane is a ghost to human sight. A phantom menace. As such, it has gone significantly under-reported in the media.

Beyond the devastating environmental impacts, the local human impact has been incredibly destructive. Regular constituents of natural gas include highly toxic chemicals such as benzene and radon, both known to the State of California to cause cancer. Chemical additives to natural gas include odorants such as mercaptan. Families in the Porter Ranch area have reported a number of health problems believed to be associated with the gas leak. Nausea, dizziness, headaches, vomiting and shortness of breath have all been reported, and multiple lawsuits have been filed. Thousands of local residents in the Porter Ranch community have been relocated, with more than 4,500 families having applied for relocation. Two schools have been relocated so far at a cost estimated to exceed $5 million, according to Los Angeles Unified. Parts of Porter Ranch have become ghost towns, empty homes and schools waiting for the disaster to be resolved.

Unfortunately, solutions to contain the toxic apparition to date have been futile. Seven separate well kill attempts from above ground have failed. The above ground well kill technique involved pumping a brine solution directly into the leaking well, with water pressure intended to balance the gas pressure and block the leak. All attempts failed and the conditions in the well are now deemed unsafe for further top-down kill attempts.

Southern California Gas Company believes they have a solution to stop the leak. This involves drilling a main relief well to a depth of 8,500 to 8,700 feet. Once the relief well makes contact with SS25, concrete will be pumped down the well shaft into the storage area to cap the leak. Unfortunately this process is time consuming, and the solution may not be finalized until March.

The idea of methane and toxic chemicals spewing into the atmosphere for another three months is not something that local residents or regulators will easily accept as an answer. One proposed solution by the gas company, which has many local residents on edge, is the idea of capturing and burning off the natural gas.

The California Public Utility Commission is demanding that that company address concerns regarding the well integrity, as well as the integrity of the ground around the well. There are fears that there could be a blowout of the well, or even a catastrophic explosion.

Public and government concerns have led to the creation of the SoCal Gas Aliso Canyon Hearing. An independent hearing board has been formed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This board, consisting of an engineer, a medical doctor, an attorney and two public members, has been given authorization to issue Orders for Abatement. The hearing board will listen to evidence from both sides of the issue and will make a decision on abatement.

On Saturday January 9th the initial hearing began. The original abatement order included SoCal Gas stopping the leak as quickly as possible, capturing all leaking gas as soon as possible, utilizing all gas from the reservoir as quickly as possible until the leak is stopped, inspecting and maintaining all wells, monitoring all emissions from the well and reservoir, retaining an independent third party to conduct a health study, and mitigating greenhouse gas impacts of the leak by funding projects that restore value to the community.

At the hearing, members of the public were allowed to testify. A strong citizen response, including demonstrations, accusations of negligence, and personal testimony of the suffering caused by the gas leak, have pressured the hearing board to consider an addition to the abatement order – shut down the entire facility. Shut. It. All. Down.

The hearings went all day as experts, attorneys, gas company officials and 75 members of the public testified under oath. The citizens’ desire to testify was so strong, a decision was unable to be made that day. A second day for the hearing was scheduled for Saturday January 16th.

Prior to the hearing, local residents and members of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club demonstrated outside of the hearing location. The citizens demanded answers, solutions and action. Without reservation, the people demanded that SoCal Gas shut down the entire gas storage facility.  

The all-day hearings on Saturday January 16th once again ended without a decision from the board.  Residents continued to push for the closure of the facility.  SoCal Gas representatives and attorneys questioned whether the board had the authority to take action beyond well SS25.  At the end of the day, the board was unable to come to a final decision.  The decision has now been pushed to Wednesday January 20th after continuation of the hearings at the air district office in Diamond Bar.    

“I regret this tremendously,” stated chairman of the board Edward Camarena. “I believe a thoughtful decision requires a careful deliberation of evidence.”   

The phantom menace of Porter Ranch continues unabated, as does the fight between local residents and SoCal Gas. While the capture of the phantom may be months away, the decision from the hearing board will likely be made within days. Will the board side with SoCal Gas, or the citizens of Porter Ranch? The answer will be known imminently.

[fightclimatedenial]

9 Simple Resolutions for Environmentally Happy New Year

by Ben Hauck

December 27th 2015

As we approach the end of another successful trip around the sun, it is time to reflect on the events of 2015 and plan for the coming of a new year.  Many individuals will create New Year’s resolutions for 2016.  Lose weight!  Go to the gym and get in shape!  Quit smoking!  Save money and get out of debt!

Some resolutions will be kept, others will be broken.  Some are internal in nature, others external.  Some resolutions will last days, others a lifetime.  Some have personal benefits, others will benefit communities, regions, or even the entire planet.

For those looking to have a positive impact on their own life, with far reaching benefits on a global scale, look no further than environmentally friendly resolutions.  I am not talking about chaining yourself to the entrance to a fracking site, or suspending yourself from a bridge to block oil ships (though I admire those who do).  I am talking about small to moderate changes you can make in your daily life to have a positive impact.

Below is a list of nine simple resolutions you can make to help protect the environment, live a healthier life, and save money in the process.  Incorporate some of these resolutions into your new year and become a part of the solution.  

Lighting 

One of the easiest steps you can take to reduce your electricity consumption is to switch from inefficient incandescent bulbs to LED or compact fluorescent bulbs.  LED bulbs have dropped in cost dramatically over the past few years, last the longest, use the least energy, and are the most environmentally friendly option.  When total costs are taken into account over a longer time span, on average LED bulbs are the most cost effective.  Check out these best-selling LED bulbs on Amazon.  Replace the bulbs in your home with LED and see an instant reduction in your electricity bill.  Plus, don’t forget to turn off lights when not in use!

Temperature

Adjust your thermostat down a couple of degrees in the winter, and up a couple of degrees in the summer.   Just two or three degrees can save energy and money!  Even better, buy a Nest Learning Thermostat.  It will intelligently manage your home temperature and pay for itself by lowering your monthly energy bill.

Recycling and Minimizing Waste

Before thinking about recycling, consider how much packaging the products you purchase are in, and what type of packaging.  Is the packaging from recycled materials, and is it in turn recyclable?  Do you really need the cereal in individual portion serving bags, all packed inside another box? Or is there a bulk option with considerably less packaging?

Once you have made smarter choices on your purchases, recycle or reuse packaging as much as possible.  Many containers can be reused multiple times, or repurposed for non-food items.  If you cannot reuse the container, be sure to maximize the amount you recycle.  Another easy option to reduce waste is using reusable shopping bags at the grocery store. If you forget them (it happens) you can always choose paper and use those bags to hold trash or recycling.  

Transportation

Whenever possible try to walk or ride a bike for local trips.  Depending on where you live, this can be a great option for smaller errands, grabbing lunch or coffee, etc.  When walking or biking is not possible, consider using mass transit, which is a more efficient form of transportation.

Realistically, vehicle transportation is a necessary part of life for many individuals. When you need to drive, try to batch errands together to minimize the number of trips.  Also consider carpooling to work or events.  Not only are these options good for the environment, they will save you money on gas and maintenance!

When the time comes for a new (or used) vehicle, the most environmentally friendly option for most is an electric vehicle (EV).  The assortment of electric vehicles grows every year, battery range continues to increase, and prices continue to come down.  This trend will continue into the future, making EVs viable for more and more individuals.  The Holy Grail option would be an EV with a home solar PV system and power storage, an option which is becoming more viable every year.

Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) are another good option, and provide the ability to travel longer ranges than EVs.  There are also a growing number of highly efficient combustion engine vehicles that provide MPG ratings similar to some HEVs.  Don’t forget the basics of maintenance like proper tire inflation, clean air filters and other factors that will maximize your fuel efficiency.

Appliances

Time for a new refrigerator, laundry machine or dish washer?  Look for EnergyStar products.  Not only are they better for the environment, they will save you money on energy bills over time.

When doing laundry, be sure to wash full loads when possible to maximize water and energy efficiency.   If you need to run a smaller load, be sure to adjust to the proper water settings to avoid waste.  If you can, wash in the cold or warm water setting.  Hot settings are often unnecessary and waste energy.  If hanging clothes for air drying is an option, try to skip the dryer whenever possible

For washing dishes, generally speaking dish washing machines are more efficient than hand washing.  This is especially true when full loads are washed, and minimal pre-rinsing is done. Most of the energy used in dish washers is from heating water, so check to be sure the temperature setting is correct. You should also air dry dishes, or even towel dry if air drying is not a good option.  

Food

Don’t worry, I am not going to preach excessively here.  Yes, the best option for the environment is to eliminate meat and dairy consumption (don’t even try that bacon vs lettuce article on me). Not ready to take that big of a step? Then set a smaller goal like meatless Mondays, or maybe cut meat out from your breakfast and lunch.  They focus is to start reducing the amount of meat consumed. You might surprise yourself with how many amazing vegetarian options now exist, and how good you feel by cutting down on animal products.

Another effective action you can take is eating locally produced foods.  This includes buying local foods at the grocery store, and choosing restaurants that serve locally sourced ingredients.  Switch from conventional to organic foods when they are available and viable.  Going organic is not only better for the environment, it will also help you avoid many harmful pesticides and chemicals. 

One more important action is to reduce your food waste.  America wastes about 40% of all food it produces or imports.  The food waste occurs at many points in the supply and consumption chain, but household waste is significant.  For perishable foods, avoid the urge to overbuy due to a sale or a discount on an excessively large purchase.  That 20lb bag of oranges may be a great deal on the surface, until half of the bag goes moldy and you toss it out.  Food waste is not only terrible for the environment, it is also a major waste of money for consumers.  

Drinks

Bottled water is one of the most inefficient and expensive water options for consumers.  Americans use approximately 50 billion water bottles per year, but less than 25% of them get recycled.  Billions of bottles are going into landfill every year, and they take hundreds of years to decompose.  The plastic requires millions of barrels of oil per year just for production, not to mention energy used for transportation.  Read more here if you are interested, or just take my word for it.  Bottled water is massively wasteful, and a lot of bottled water is simply repackaged municipal water.

Get a reusable water bottle that does not contain BPA.  I love my Hydro Flask.  Then get a filtering device to remove the nasty stuff that can hide in tap water. You can go with home filtering, under the sink filtering, faucet filters, or easy options like filtering pitchers.  Brita filters remove some contaminants, but there are much more effective water filter systems out there.  I just got the new Soma filter for Christmas (thanks Mom!).

Are you a soda drinker?  Check out a home solution like the Soda Stream.  It is a much more environmentally friendly option for soda, sparkling water, etc. Making your own soda also allows you to control the sweetness and calories, and can save you a ton of money at the grocery store.

Coffee drinker?  If you are using a Keurig and the disposable K-cups, you should think about the environmental impacts of tossing those cups in the trash.  Sure, they seem small and harmless, until you realize that the world is disposing billions of the cups every year.  There are some interesting discussions on the pros and cons of the K-cup, but in the end there are better options.  Check out the reusable filter, a better choice for the planet and for your wallet.

No matter what you are drinking, ditch the disposable cups.  Keep a mug at the office.  Take your coffee container to Starbucks for a fill.  Ditch stirring straws and use a metal spoon instead, or put the cream and sugar in first, then the coffee.  Speaking of straws, did you know Americans use approximately 500 million straws per day, and most end up in the landfill (if not the ocean)?  Say no to the straw and drink right from the cup.

Power

If you own your own home, take a close look at rooftop solar.  With costs plummeting in recent years, the electricity generated from rooftop systems now costs the same or less than traditional power from the grid in many areas.  There are tons of companies and purchase options out there.  Talk with experts at a company like Solar City to find out how much you can save.

If solar is not an option, you can still buy power that is offset by renewable energy purchases.   Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) services are available in most areas of the US.  There are many REC options to choose from (I use Arcadia Power to power my home with wind energy).

Junk Mail

Junk mail is a massive source of waste and environmental damage, and contributes significantly to climate change.  While most mailings are recyclable, and some are made from recycled materials, a significant percentage of junk mail ends up in landfills.  The good news is that services exist to reduce junk mail.  You should also get rid of those catalog subscriptions you don’t use by calling or emailing and asking them to cancel the subscription.  Another great action is to switch to online billing and get rid of paper statements whenever possible.

One final step you can take: share this article or some of the individual resolutions with your friends and family.  If everyone incorporates some of these resolutions into 2016 (and beyond!), and convinces friends and family members to do the same, we can make a significant positive contribution to the world around us.  That means even more successful trips around the sun, and more January gym memberships!

[fightclimatedenial]

The Fire, by Ben Hauck