Environmental activism

timhowardlaw

Greenpeace Billboard in Peru

Peru hosted a summit meeting on climate change in early December, 2014 under the auspices of the United Nations.  Greenpeace made its point:  “Time For Change!  The Future is Renewable.  Greenpeace.”  For a billboard Greenpeace chose big and obvious:  huge yellow letters easily visible from the air positioned near Nazca, Peru – near the site of a geoglyph portion of the Nazca Lines.  The Nazca Lines were made between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D. by removing a layer of overburden to reveal lighter colored stratum below.  The Greenpeace letters were placed next to a glyph of a hummingbird.

Greenpeace achieved its intention.  Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, saw the message.  But the message delivered with the lettering was rather different:  disrespect for an archaeological site and perhaps irreparable damage from the letters and from the footprints of the activists on fragile terrain.  Professional archaeologists and the Peruvian Ministry of Culture voiced their fury.

A portion of the Nazca Lines, including the hummingbird, lie within an area declared a World Heritage Site.  The Greenpeace action created a real controversy.  But Greenpeace intends its actions to create controversy.  What difference if the actions affect a site internationally known and scientifically important or infringe my private property – or yours?  The number of people damaged or affected?

Greenpeace achieved notoriety but not the objective of focusing attention on climate change.  Perhaps a misfire of tactics, or perhaps a case of offending the scientific and intellectual community instead of the for-profit.

timhowardlaw

Bakken Crude Draws DOT Emergency Order

The eastbound crude petroleum carrying train collided with a derailed westbound grain train with thunderous results for Casselton, North Dakota.  Ruptured rail cars belched 400,000 gallons of crude which the shattered rail cars ignited to explosion lighting the late December night.  More than a month before that 2013 day, the rural landscape near Aliceville, Alabama similarly erupted when a train derailed and released an undetermined amount of crude from punctured tank cars.  The crude fouled wetlands near the site of the wreck, although thankfully no one was hurt.

The US Department of Transportation responded on February 25, 2014 with an Emergency Restriction/Prohibition applicable to shipments of Bakken crude.  Based on evidence that shows Bakken crude to have Reid Vapor Pressure readings as high a 9.7 psi, the DOT now requires Bakken to be tested frequently enough to ensure that the crude is classified properly according to DOT classes; and with respect to crude with Bakken characteristics, require it to be handled as hazardous material in Packing Group I or II.  The rule applies to those who provide the crude to the railroad carrier.  The consequences of violation?  Civil penalties of up to $175,000 for each violation or for each day of violation, in addition to criminal fines and imprisonment of up to ten years.

What about the trains?  The Department of Transportation issued no new rules or advisories regarding the integrity of tank cars or the safe operation of the rail system.  Trains are not supposed to derail and tank cars puncture.

Effective new rules?  The classification and hazardous material packing group may not fully account for the types of vapor emitted by Bakken crude.  The new rules of course address nothing concerning tank cars or railroad movements.  Perhaps the real issue is capital cost:  who will bear the cost of modifying and upgrading infrastructure and rolling stock as needed to improve protection.  More to come.

 

timhowardlaw

Climate Change: The Coming of Funds

This time Congress must allocate the money for the proposed Climate Resilience Fund, announced by President Obama on Friday, February 14 in drought-stricken and federally-aided California.  The assistant to the President on science and technology, John Holdren, clarified that this was a scientific imperative as well as a political issue and would be a recurring theme.  The Fund is separate from the climate agenda set forth in June, 2013.  The purpose of the Fund would be more than academic research, in that it would include assistance to communities to prepare for climate change and would promote the search for new technological solutions for infrastructure and other improvements to deal with the changing climate.  The Fund would also engage in data gathering regarding the impact of climate change, although that seems redundant to current efforts unless the focus in somehow more unique than at first appears.

The Fund will be part of the Administration’s budget proposal for 2015, due to be unveiled soon.  This is part of the Administration’s “year of action”.  The President will – and has – used Executive Orders to implement other parts of his action agenda.  Whether progress toward the Fund could come from that mechanism is not yet clear.  Look for further Administrative directives to executive agencies, such as NASA and the EPA on his matter if Congress fails or refuses to implement the Fund.  Mr. Holdren made clear that the initiative would move forward.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198394-obama-to-announce-1b-climate-change-resilience-fund#ixzz2tVC54LBZ

timhowardlaw

Piracy or Greenpeace?

The 30 person crew of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was taken ashore in Murmansk, Russia on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 for questioning in connection with the attempted scaling on Sept. 18 of a Russian oil platform owned by OAO Gazprom in the Barents Sea.  The activists were protesting oil drilling in the Arctic, specifically in a new area that Russia was opening for development.  Russia was neither amused nor tolerant; the Investigative Committee, a Russian federal law enforcement body, will probe the incident but has already vowed to bring all those involved to justice.  The potential charge is piracy and the penalty is up to 15 years in a Russian prison.  The crew includes an American, four Russians and six Britons as far as now known.  The Investigative Committee specifically stated that punishment will be levied “regardless of their citizenship.”  The Kremlin’s human rights ombudsman characterized the option sought by the Investigative Committee as “gentle”, called the activists’ goals “noble” but accused them of endangering their lives and the health of others, presumably those on the drilling rig.  The spokesman for the Investigative Committee said that the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel was “full of electronic devices of unknown origin and people calling themselves participants in an ecological rights group”, who tried to “all but storm” the platform.  He concluded that these actions raised doubts about their intentions.

Greenpeace rejected the characterization, called the activists peaceful and took the position that the charges had no basis in international law.  Some of the statement by the Investigative Committee took issue with the legal points, international as well as Russian federal law.

The oil platform?  Drilling now and expected to begin production later this year (2013).  The partners in the oil platform may include oil companies from various countries.  No statement from the governments of those countries or from the oil companies.  Greenpeace demanded the immediate release of the crew (no mention of the vessel) but made no further indication of plans to contest the matter.

Piracy action or Greenpeace activism?  Surprisingly muted response from Greenpeace and no statement at all from ecologically-minded countries, the UN or any NGO about what could be a stunning precedent.