1701

That would awesome :)

1702

Ah, ok. I looked it up, and apparently the original article is just poorly written.

Canada does in fact have a classification of “For Canadian Eyes Only”, which is basically an ADDITIONAL classification that goes on top of already classified material, limiting its distribution to only Canadian citizens.

The orginal article was ridiculous in that it seemed like there was a special classification that was “Any canadian can see this, but no one else!”

1703

That does make slightly more sense, lol

1704

NONFORN is the US equivalent.

1705

‘New hopes that tar sands could be banned from Europe’:
<br />
<br />
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/19/new-hopes-that-tar-sands-could-be-banned-from-europe
<br />
<br />

A landmark directive with the potential to ban tar sands oil from Europe has been reprieved, the Guardian has learned.

The EU’s most senior energy official confirmed that the fuel quality directive (FQD) to encourage greener road fuels will not be scrapped at the end of the decade, as had been thought.

Around 15% of Europe’s carbon emissions come from road transport and ambitious plans for cutting emissions from vehicles are expected to form a significant chunk of the bloc’s ‘Energy Union’ proposals next week.

Asked by the Guardian whether that meant the FQD would continue after 2020, the EU’s vice president for energy union, Maroš Šefčovič, said: “My first reaction is yes. We just have to adjust it to all the lessons learned from biofuels, and all the [other] lessons learned from the previous time.”

The FQD has been a platform for measures intended to price tar sands out of the European market – and for targets to provide 10% of Europe’s transport fuel from low carbon sources, mostly biofuels, by 2020.

Transport fuels are the only European sector in which emissions are still rising and the directive mandates a 6% reduction in their greenhouse gas intensity by 2020.

But specific measures to bring this about in the FQD were strongly opposed by Canada, which threatened trade retaliation if the EU acted on scientific advice and taxed tar sands oil at a higher rate because they are more polluting than conventional oil.

Environmentalists also complained that the 10% target for biofuels was driving deforestation and pushing up commodity prices.

Not sure if this will have an effect on the uk or not (i sure hope so though)? Anyway some small possible ‘good news’ in relation to the irresponsible usage of tar sands. Now we just need Canadian and USA public to push their politicians to do something similar and the world gets a bit more time to protect it’s near future.

And back to that theme of fossil fuel divestment stuff:

‘World’s biggest PR firm calls it quits with American oil lobby – reports’:

The world’s largest public relations firm is ending its lucrative relationship with America’s powerful oil lobby – after more than a decade and at least $327m in billings.

Circumstances of the divorce between Edelman public relations and the American Petroleum Institute (API) were not immediately clear.

Edelman said it would not comment on the report, and there was no immediate response from API.

But ties between the oil lobby and the PR firm ran deep.

Much of the advertising work for API was handled by an Edelman subsidiary, Blue Advertising. The Holmes Report, which covers the public relations industry and first reported the split, said Blue would divest from Edelman and go on handling the oil lobby’s advertising campaigns.

The oil lobby paid Edelman $327.4m for lobbying and public relations, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity. Those earnings, which include money later spent by Edelman for advertising, cover only a five-year period from 2008-2012.

But there were some very good years. In 2010, the contract with API was worth more than 10% of Edelman’s global revenue, according to the Climate Investigations Center. In that year, Edelman’s global revenue was $532m and the contract with API $63m.

That relationship was by no means exclusive. API paid another PR firm, FleishmanHillard, an additional $51m.

But Edelman had favoured status, according to the Climate Investigations Center, which has tracked the company’s complicated relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In 2008, the oil lobby paid Edelman $75m, more than a third of the $203m in revenues collected in membership dues from ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil companies.

A case of this PR company looking after it’s own image, PR on itself.

1706

The Harvard divestment thing is hotting up:

‘Harvard’s high-profile alumni join fossil fuel divestment campaign in open letter’

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/20/harvard-celebrity-alumni-fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign-open-letter

Some of Harvard’s most prominent graduates – from Hollywood star Natalie Portman to environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr and the scholar Cornel West – called on the world’s richest university to dump fossil- fuel companies from its $36bn endowment.

In an open letter, released on Friday as the university was being taken to court by its own students, more than 30 former Harvard students signed on to a campus campaign calling on the university to fight climate change by divesting from coal, oil and gas companies.

The alumni included Maya Lin, the architect of the Vietnam war memorial, Nobel laureate Eric Chivian, Pulitzer prize-winning author Susan Faludi, academics, preachers, former US senators and Securities and Exchange commissioners as well as Bill McKibben, the founder of the group 350.org, which has driven the campus divestment campaign.

“As Harvard’s own researchers have done so much to show, global warming is the greatest threat the planet faces,” the letter says. “From the typhoon-battered Philippines to the disappearing islands of the Pacific to the water-starved towns of California’s drought-ridden Central Valley, this issue demands we all make changes to business as usual – especially those of us who have prospered from the systems driving climate change.

The letter, released just hours before the university faced a hearing in a lawsuit filed by students arguing that Harvard has a duty to fight climate change by pulling out of fossil fuel investments, suggests Harvard will face continued pressure in the months ahead over its endowment policies.

The alumni called for an old-style teach-in at Harvard on 12 April, followed by several days of sit-ins and rallies.

Over the last two years, the university has faced rising demands from students and faculty to set an example by winding down its direct investments in coal, oil and gas companies, thought to be worth at least $79m. It is believed indirect investments in fossil fuels are much greater.

1707

‘Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules

To Washington insiders he is Dr Evil: the hidden orchestrator of industry campaigns against the Humane Society, Mothers against Drunk Driving, and other seemingly uncontroversial groups.

Now Richard Berman, a one-time lobbyist turned industry strategist, has zeroed in on another target: Barack Obama’s new power plant rules.

Over the last year, Berman has secretly routed funding for at least 16 studies and launched at least five front groups attacking Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon dioxide from power plants, the Guardian has learned.

The rules, the centre-piece of Obama’s climate agenda, are due to be finalised in mid-summer. They have come under sustained assault from industry and Republican-controlled Congress – and Berman is right at the heart of it.

The attacks may be gaining traction. The EPA chief, Gina McCarthy, suggested in a speech this week the rules were likely to change in response to public comment.

From the offices of Berman’s PR firm in Washington, at least five new front groups have launched attack ads against the EPA, environmental groups, fishermen and sportsmen, and green building organisations. The groups all use Berman’s address.

Meanwhile, the Employment Policies Institute, a tax-exempt organisation headed by Berman and operating out of his office according to tax filings, funded a series of reports by an ultra-conservative thinktank, the Beacon Hill Institute.

The reports, claiming the power plant rules would lead to rolling blackouts, send electricity prices skyrocketing, and devastate local economies, are being published in 16 states by a network of pro-corporate and ultra-conservative thinktanks.

All of the reports were funded by EPI, according to Suffolk University, the host institution for Beacon Hill. Suffolk released a list of such grants.

Berman did not respond to requests for comment. However, a spokesman, Jordan Bruneau, confirmed that EPI was funding the analyses of the EPA regulations.

“Currently IPA is working with economists to determine the effects of certain EPA regulations on particular states,” he said in an email. He said the research was entirely funded by foundations but refused to identify those funders.

Those familiar with Berman say he is a prime example of a new industry strategy of bypassing traditional lobbying organisations, and using thinktanks, foundations, experts, and social media to shape the public conversation and – ultimately – legislation.

“Richard Berman is very well known for certain front groups and for taking money from anonymous sources to fund aggressive campaigns in the interests of the individuals and the corporations who fund him with the understanding that that funding will be kept secret,” said Nick Surgey, research director of the Center for Media and Democracy.

Indeed, Berman claims his ability to hide the funding sources for such campaigns as a particular expertise.

“People always ask me one question all the time: ‘How do I know that I won’t be found out as a supporter of what you’re doing?’” Berman told a conference of energy executives last year. The talk was secretly recorded and leaked to the New York Times.

“We run all of this stuff through non-profit organisations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don’t know who supports us,” Berman told the energy executives.

He claimed at the time to have already collected six-figure sums from some of the companies in the room – and solicited $3m more to defeat opponents of fracking.

Dr.Evil! Who is his mini-me i wonder?

1708

And good news on the very low oil price, it is making ‘expensive to extract’ tar sands uneconomical (which is good for the climate change issue):

‘Shell shelves plan for tar sands project in face of low oil prices’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/shell-shelves-plan-for-tar-sands-project-in-face-of-low-oil-prices

Shell has shelved plans for a major new tar sands mine in Canada, the largest project yet to fall victim to low oil prices.

The company has withdrawn its application for the 200,000-barrel-per-day (bpd) Pierre River project and will instead concentrate on boosting the profitability of its existing 255,000-bpd oil sands operations.

“The Pierre River Mine remains a very long-term opportunity for us, but it’s not currently a priority,” said Lorraine Mitchelmore, president of Shell’s Canada. “Our current focus is on making our heavy oil business as economically and environmentally competitive as possible.”

Oil sands extraction is controversial because of its high carbon footprint compared to conventional crude. Furthermore, a series of analyses have found that the world’s fossil fuel reserves are already three times greater than could be burned if global warming is to remain below 2C, the stated aim of the world’s nations.

If governments keep their pledge, the unburnable fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground and would become worthless, potentially endangering trillions of dollars of investors’ funds.

But there is no time left for complacency, sudden sea rises have already been recorded:

'US sea level north of New York City ‘jumped by 128mm’:

Sea levels north of New York City rose by 128mm in two years, according to a report in the journal, Nature Communications.

Coastal areas will need to prepare for short term and extreme sea level events, say US scientists.

Climate models suggest extreme sea level rises will become more common this century.

“The extreme sea level rise event during 2009-10 along the northeast coast of North America is unprecedented during the past century,” Prof Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona told BBC News.

“Statistical analysis indicates that it is a 1-in-850 year event.”

1709

‘Planet Earth is a sick patient due to climate change, says Prince Charles’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/26/planet-earth-is-a-sick-patient-due-to-climate-change-says-prince-charles

The Prince of Wales has compared the planet to a “sick patient,” warning it could face its “death certificate” at the hands of climate change.

Speaking to health experts at the Royal Society in London on Wednesday, Charles said: “We can only pray that our sick planetary patient might be placed on a road to recovery, in the process bringing gains for human well-being.

“Failure to write the prescription, however, might leave us contemplating the death certificate instead.

“So, my fervent hope is that you can find the means to make the difference that our world so desperately needs.”

The prince was speaking to health professionals, health ministers and senior civil servants about “putting health at the centre of the climate change debate”.

He said climate change was a challenge of “astonishing complexity” and urged health practitioners to be bolder about highlighting its effects on well-being.

He said: “I hardly need to tell you we are faced, I fear, as far as the problem of human-induced climate change is concerned, with a challenge of astonishing complexity.

“The fact of climate change is now accepted by every major scientific body in the whole world.

“The gravity and immediacy of the threat it poses to us and our children and grandchildren is also accepted by constituencies that can scarcely be accused of being part of some half-baked conspiracy dreamt up by extreme environmentalists intent on undermining capitalism.

“These constituencies include the UN, the World Bank; The Pentagon and the UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, NSA. … and, I’m happy to say, nurses and doctors.”

1710

No offense, but who cares about a prognosis given by Prince fucking Charles?

1711

Me? :) And probably some others. One thing to keep in mind is how the Royalty have changed since the days of pure Empire, for example Prince Charles is actually a very ‘progressive’ type of guy, especially in relation to the life and role he was born into. So it is always good to see someone from that type of background (i guess it equates to the Elites of your own country, the sons of Big Oil and Big Business etc?) take up an ideological stance that 30 years ago would have been unheard off.

The times they are a changing and this is all good news for the rest of us. That kind of thing.

‘Global warming slowdown probably due to natural cycles, study finds’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/26/global-warming-slowdown-probably-due-to-natural-cycles-study-finds

Manmade global warming over the past decade has probably been partly offset by the cooling effect of natural variability in the Earth’s climate system, a team of climate researchers have concluded.

The finding could help explain the slowdown in temperature rises this century that climate sceptics have seized on as evidence climate change has stopped, even though 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since 2000.

The authors of the new paper describe the slowdown, sometimes called a global warming hiatus or pause, as a “false pause”. They warn that the natural cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic that they found are currently having an overall cooling effect on temperatures will reverse in the coming decades – at which point warming will accelerate again.

“It [the new paper] has important implications for understanding the slowdown,” said Byron A Steinman, the lead author of the study, which was published in the journal Science on Thursday.

“I think probably the biggest thing that people should understand is there is randomness in the climate system. The recent slowdown in no way invalidates the idea that continued burning of fossil fuels will increase Earth’s surface temperature and pose a substantial burdens on human society,” Steinman told the Guardian.

1712

More junk* science! First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

This can’t possibly be true, I have 8’ snow piles in my yard!*

You never know

sarcasm

1713

‘What happened to the lobbyists who tried to reshape the US view of climate change?’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/27/what-happened-to-lobbyists-who-tried-reshape-us-view-climate-change

In early 1998, some of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world were hatching a plan to hijack the science of human-caused global warming.

Representatives from major fossil fuel corporations and industry groups had joined forces with operatives from major conservative think tanks and public relations experts to draft what they called their Global Climate Science Communications (GCSC) plan.

In a memo the plan boldly declared its goal would be to convince “a majority of the American public” that “significant uncertainties exist in climate science”.

Earlier this week it was revealed that major US coal utility Southern Company had paid scientist Dr Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer based at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, more than $400,000 in recent years for science research.

In total, Soon had received more than a million dollars from Southern Company, Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute in the last 14 years. These three key funders of Soon’s work were also involved in formulating the GCSC plan.

Soon is a popular and oft-cited scientist within climate science denialist circles and claims the sun is the key driver of climate change with fossil fuels playing a minimal role.

But climate scientists have repeatedly dismissed his views, which are at odds with science academies around the world. Soon has previously stated that his fossil fuel funding does not influence his scientific work.

One of Soon’s contacts at Southern Company was the now retired Robert Gehri, one of the original dozen people behind the plan.

The plan was developed during the early months of 1998, which went on to be declared the hottest on record by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A study has found that in the scientific literature published in 1998 there were 96 papers on global warming that agreed that humans were the main cause, versus only three that disagreed.

The goals of the fossil fuel industry’s plan were clear, ambitious and well articulated. Gehri told the Guardian the plan was “never implemented” but analysis for this report suggests many of the suggested tactics were rolled out in subsequent years.

With an overall budget of $2m (£1.3m) the plan would look to reshape the view of climate change science among the public and policy makers in a way that would favour the industries that stood to lose the most from regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The investigation published here, with support from DeSmogBlog and the Climate Investigations Center (CIC), finds many of those involved are still trying to convince politicians, legislators and the public that the science is faulty or can be largely ignored.

Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace researcher and founder of CIC, said: “We now have evidence through the Willie Soon documents that ExxonMobil, Southern Company and the American Petroleum Institute, who were in the room in 1998, carried on with elements of the plan, even after it was leaked and on the front page of the New York Times.

“The 1998 plan is very detailed and talks about moving money to support this campaign through free-market anti-regulation NGOs like the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec). It names multiple front groups and organisations which we know ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundations supported and still support.

“Impacting the voice of elected officials was a key target under the ‘Victory will be achieved’ section of the memo. Now in the US, about half our elected officials are climate deniers or are scared to even talk about the subject, so the impact of this 1998 campaign and subsequent misinformation campaigns around climate science is still clearly holding us back from climate policy solutions.”

Jail time maybe for these kind of people? I could certainly see a future where those that are set to loose billions (probably trillions) in non Big Oil ventures due to the Climate Change we already have set underway, they might have some appetite for following these kind of trails and calling those responsible to account. I would imagine by then the public mood would also be different to all this in the usa? This will be way bigger than the cigarette industry thing.

1714

A couple of cool ‘green energy’ projects:

‘World’s first lagoon power plants unveiled in UK’:

Plans to generate electricity from the world’s first series of tidal lagoons have been unveiled in the UK.

The six lagoons - four in Wales and one each in Somerset and Cumbria - will capture incoming and outgoing tides behind giant sea walls, and use the weight of the water to power turbines.

A £1bn Swansea scheme, said to be able to produce energy for 155,000 homes, is already in the planning system.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey says he wants to back the project.

The cost of generating power from the Swansea project will be very high, but the firm behind the plan says subsequent lagoons will be able to produce electricity much more cheaply.

It says the series of six lagoons could generate 8% of the UK’s electricity for an investment of £12bn.

As well as Swansea, the proposed lagoon sites are Cardiff, Newport, and Colwyn Bay in Wales; Bridgwater in Somerset; and West Cumbria.

Each will require engineering on a grand scale. In Swansea, the sea wall to contain the new lagoon will stretch more than five miles and reach more than two miles out to sea.

‘Under the sun: Australia’s largest solar farm set to sprout in a Queensland field’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/02/under-the-sun-australias-largest-solar-farm-set-to-sprout-in-a-queensland-field

A sea of glass panels may soon be sprawling across a paddock in Queensland’s Darling Downs cranking out two gigawatts of energy – 100 times more than the largest solar farm in Australia today – and a former top flight barrister is the unusual shining light behind its development.

Gemmell set up Solar Choice – a solar project broker and consumer comparison service – while still in his legal chambers and he is now the proponent of what stands to become the largest solar farm in the country, perhaps the world.

A sea of glass panels, to be located at Bulli Creek on Queensland’s Darling Downs, could be capable of cranking out two gigawatts of power within eight years. That is equivalent to one fifth of the current total renewable energy target for the entire country in a single power station. It is also more power than any coal fired station in Queensland can currently muster.

“Excellent sunlight hours” are just one reason why Bulli Creek is ideal for a large-scale solar farm, Gemmell says.

It is also grazing land – meaning no prime cropping land need be sacrificed – and is flat, treeless and has no neighbours.

Crucially, Bulli Creek is close to a major transmission node in the national electricity grid, a 330 kilovolt substation, perfectly located to send power around the country.

“There’s a surprisingly small number of sites (in Australia) that have everything all aligning at once,” Gemmell says.

Factors seem to be likewise aligning in solar power’s favour more broadly, although a few things still need to fall into place for the likes of Gemmell.

Investment banks are leaning away from coal fired stations towards large scale renewables, he says, while the electric car market is driving rapid innovations in battery storage that are an automatic fillip to the solar energy industry.

Those advances are essential in helping the solar industry “nullify the argument principally raised against renewables as being intermittent, and deliver smooth power throughout the day and night,” Gemmell says.

More of this please :)

1715

So what am I supposed to think living here in Seattle? We’re in the midst of the hottest winter on record, the last 12 months have all individually been above-average in temperature, I’m going hiking on 50-60 degree perfectly sunny days in the middle of February, and the ski season is utter shit.

On one hand, I recognize that this has to be influenced by climate change, just as the extreme cold weather on the east coast is influenced by it as well.

But on the other hand, can it really cause such a massive swing in just one year like this?

I’m no skeptic - I know climate change is real, and it’s human influenced. I’m just wondering if I should be worried that this is the new norm, or if there’s anything to suggest that this extreme swing is just an outlier and hopefully will go back to normal this next year.

I’m especially worried about how dry this will make the forests next summer since there’s no snow anywhere.

1716

Chicago just set records for lows in February. Last year the talk of the town was the Polar Vortex.

You can imagine what conversations I’ve had to endure because of that.

On the plus side I’ve had a chance to hone an analogy that most people understand. That Jose Altueve hit .340 does not disprove that batting averages are down and strikeouts are up. It is merely one abnormal data point, most show lower.

1717

The short answer is ‘Yes’. This is exactly the pattern climate scientists have been predicting as signs of man made climate change for ages now. The long answer is much of what this whole thread covers in detail :)

1718

‘Focus on green tech to tackle climate change, says UK’s climate adviser’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03/green-tech-key-to-tackling-climate-change-says-uks-climate-adviser

Green technology should be as much a focus of tackling climate change as the United Nations negotiations leading up to a crunch conference in Paris this December, the UK’s top foreign office adviser on climate said on Tuesday.

Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government and now the special representative for climate change, said: “Technology is moving ahead very rapidly. I think we need to focus not only on the details of the negotiations, but also on what the technological revolution is going to bring to us.”

He cited as an example new biofuels technology that can turn agricultural waste into ethanol, and uses the methane produced as a byproduct to power the factory in which it is created. If this were “translated” to be used widely in China, for instance, the potential would be “massive … enormous”, he said.

As the world’s governments gear up for the Paris talks, Sir David said the UK was “leading the world” in climate diplomacy, forming close associations with other governments and among officials as a key focus of the Foreign Office’s efforts. He said the foreign secretary had “protected” the budget for this diplomatic push against swingeing cuts that have affected other parts of the department.

At Paris, governments are hoping to forge a new global agreement on the climate that would set national targets for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, when current targets run out. Governments are scheduled to produce their targets this month, with Switzerland last week becoming the first nation to submit its proposals to the UN.

The European Union, China and the US have also publicly set out proposals, though these have yet to be formally codified into the UN process. The EU has pledged to cut emissions by 40% relative to 1990 levels by 2030, while China’s emissions will peak by 2030 and the US will cut greenhouse gases by 25% to 28% by 2025.

Professor Qi Ye, a leading Chinese adviser on energy policy, added that China’s emissions might peak sooner as the hope was for a peak year “around 2030”, and that the country was moving ahead rapidly on renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear power and reducing coal consumption, which fell by 3% last year partly because of slowing economic growth but also from the effects of policy.

He pointed to recent adverse publicity on air pollution, which is a major problem in Chinese cities and was recently highlighted by Chai Jing in a much-seen internet video, and that this would also provide a strong spur to cleaning up greenhouse gas emissions. This approach, of emphasising the “co-benefits” to health from dealing with climate change as well as air and water pollution, was gaining ground, he said.

1719

‘Global flood toll to triple by 2030’:

The number of people affected by river flooding worldwide could nearly triple in the next 15 years, analysis shows. Climate change and population growth are driving the increase, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI).

In the UK, about 76,000 people a year could be at risk of being affected by flooding if defences aren’t improved, it says. The yearly cost of damage to urban areas could reach more than £1bn.

The centre says this is the first public analysis of all world data on current and future river-flood risks. It demonstrates some 20 million people are at risk of being affected by flooding, and it costs almost £65bn in GDP.

According to the new evaluation, in just 15 years time these numbers could rise to around 50 million people with an annual potential cost to the world economy of around £340bn.

Much of this is attributed to climate change and socioeconomic development.

So if you have already experienced floods yourself, it is set to get worse (obviously, as Man Made Climate Change increases), make a plan now.

‘Industry lobbyists weakened Europe’s air pollution rules, say Greenpeace’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-lobbyists-weakened-europes-air-pollution-rules-say-greenpeace

Governments, including the UK, are allowing energy industry representatives to help draw up Europe’s air quality limits resulting in proposed standards on coal plant emissions that are weaker than China’s, claim the campaign group.

New limits on air pollution in Europe have been watered down because governments are allowing some of the worst polluters to help draw up the rules, according to a Greenpeace investigation.

The Guardian has also learned that despite UK claims to the contrary, energy industry representatives repeatedly and forcefully pushed for weaker pollution limits at meetings in Brussels.

As a result of ongoing lobbying, the proposed European Union standards on toxic emissions from coal plants will be less strict than in China, the green campaign group said.

Greenpeace analysed the backgrounds of hundreds of representatives who have been appointed by governments to sit on a key official group that is formulating new limits on air pollution across Europe.

It found that out of 352 members of the technical working group, 183 are either employed by the companies that are being regulated, or by lobby groups that represent those companies.

“Toxic emissions are killing thousands of people across Europe every year, but rather than clamp down on polluters, politicians are allowing them to prioritise profit over public health. People in the UK could now end up paying with their health for our government’s sell-out to the coal lobby on a vital issue like air quality,” said Lawrence Carter, a campaigner for Greenpeace.

Documents released to the group under the freedom of information act show that the companies helped to formulate Britain’s position, which was adopted and submitted to the European negotiations two years ago.

1720

A step in the right direction:

‘Indigenous Peruvians win Amazon pollution payout from US oil giant’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/indigenous-peruvians-amazon-pollution-settlement-us-oil-occidental

Members of the indigenous Achuar tribe from the Peruvian Amazon have won an undisclosed sum from Occidental Petroleum in an out-of-court settlement after a long-running legal battle in the US courts.

They sued the company in 2007, alleging it knowingly caused pollution which caused premature deaths, birth defects and damaged their habitat.

It is the first time a company from the United States has been sued in a US court for pollution it caused in another country, Marco Simons, the legal director of EarthRights International, which represented the Achuar people in the lawsuit, said. It set a “precedent” which he said will be “significant for future cases and has already been cited by other courts in the United States”.

The case was initially dismissed in 2008 when the federal district court agreed with Occidental Petroleum that the case should be heard in Peru rather than Los Angeles, the plaintiffs successfully appealed to overturn this decision, and the US supreme court refused to hear the company’s arguments in 2013.

The funds provided by the company through a trust will be used for health, education and nutrition projects run by a collective of five Achuar communities (Antioquía, José Olaya, Nueva Jerusalén, Pampa Hermosa and Saukí) that filed the lawsuit. All come from the Corrientes river basin in Peru’s northern Amazon.

One of the plaintiffs, Adolfina Sandi alleges her 11-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter died after drinking water from the contaminated river.

“We didn’t know the impact of the pollution and the company never told us. My son and daughter died vomiting blood. They never confirmed to us why they had died,” she said. Speaking her native Achuar language, Sandi said she was grateful for the settlement even though her children would not benefit from the projects.